I wrote in a comment today, "A pivotal moment in my own career as a researcher came when (after reading Robert Nozick) I changed from arguing for the correctness of what I was doing to explaining why I was doing what I was doing." But what does that mean, exactly? This paper (12 page PDF) from 2012 surfaced on Philosophical Progress a couple of days ago that offers a good overview of a range of perspectives on explanation. Specifically, "pluralism about explanation coheres with the multiplicity of models of explanation available in the philosophy of science, and is supported by evidence from the psychology of explanatory judgment." When we answer the question "why this instead of that?" we sometimes will appear to a law of nature or general principle, but more often what we appeal to will be much more complex and centered in context and the human condition. Image: Weiskopf, The Plurality of Concepts.
Today: 2 Total: 85 [Direct link] [Share]
