Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Fraassen I 104
Relevance/explanation/ScrivenVsHempel/BrombergerVsHempel: Relevance provides neither sufficient nor necessary conditions that something is an explanation.
Not sufficient: good belief reasons are no explanation: e.g. redshift cannot be a reason for the expansion.
>Redshift.
Not necessary: not every explanation gives good belief reasons. - E.g. rare disease as a result of a frequent disease: - So you advise for treatment. - but it would not be rational to expect that the disease occurs.
E.g. a very small amount of uranium does probably not radiate - but when it radiates the correct explanation is, that it is uranium.
E.g. a man that takes birth control pills and does not get pregnant.
I 109
Relevance is not sufficient: E.g. 90% of the plants are killed: then it is not an explanation for the plants that survived that they were sprayed.
>Sufficiency, >Explanations, >Causal explanation, >Statistics,
>Probability, >Probability theory.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.