EXPLANATION AND REFERENCE
暂无分享,去创建一个
I argue that the importance of reference for scientific explanation has been overlooked, and that actual referential stability itself is more important in the success of scientific theories than many apparently believe. Citing the work of Van Fraassen and Lipton, I delineate cases of referential failure, both intratheoretically and intertheoretically, and remind us of the role played by reference in theories both realist and non-realist. I conclude that work on such areas as contrastive explanation cannot move forward without a better account of reference, and cite previously published material on the relationship between reference and epistemic access.
[1] Richard Boyd,et al. Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology , 1980, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.
[2] J. Duran. Causal Reference and Epistemic Justification , 1988, Philosophy of Science.
[3] Peter Lipton,et al. Contrastive Explanation and Causal Triangulation , 1991, Philosophy of Science.