1. How does Science explain a fact? Please use the entire explanation on. p. 91 and 92.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
Science explains fact by embedding it in a general law from which the fact to be explained can be logically deduced. The particular fact is explained by being comprehended under, and derived from, a general law.
2. What are some common misconceptions about scientific explanations? How does Abel refute each one?
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
That science merely describes, but doesn't explain; and he refutes this by stating that there is no clear line between explanation and description. Also that science explains the strange with the familiar, but typically is the reverse. And that scientific explanation is not the same as understanding, but understanding is more like knowledge by acquaintance than science. A scientific explanation need not be a casual law, but can be a simultaneous existence.
3. What does Abel mean when he says: "a law in turn may be explained by another law of wider scope; the greater the generality, the better the explanation." (p. 93)?
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
That the wider the scope of the law, the better the explanation of the event is. The wider the scope the more it incorporates and the more elegant the explanation.
4. What does Abel mean when he says: "Explanation is always relative to a given knowledge situation; you must stop somewhere." (p. 94)?
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
He means that you can't explain everything relating to one situation; you've gotta pick the most important features and explain them.
5. Why are explanatory reductions "economical ways of describing phenomena." (p. 95)?
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
Because they explain only what is necessary, and avoid going off on tangents.
6. Why does scientific explanation require the concept of system?
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
Because that concept of system allows the integration of various laws, and as all things interact in the world, it follows that they would in science.
7. Why is the theory of emergence used to explain how anything new came into the world? What counter-claim does Abel provide?
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
Because there is the lack of any other explanation, and able points out that even this is unable to predict most emerging elements.
8. Why is theory and observation interdependent in scientific explanations?
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
Because nearly all theories require observations to gain evidence for the theories and observations are explained by theories.
9. Why is explanation in science theoretically identical to prediction? How does Abel feel about this?
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
Explanation is theoretically identical to prediction because they both explain a phenomena, but Abel feels that as you don't need a prediciton for a good explanation, there is a difference.
10. What does Abel mean when he says: 'The growth of science is not a clear-cut, straightforward progression toward a unique, all-inclusive final truth." (p. 100)?
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
He means that science is not a strait shot, but rather many different fronts progressing down many different corridors, not necessarily aware of the others, and never seeking an all encompassing truth.
11. According to Abel, what situations are seen by scientists as requiring explanation?
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
Things that seem natural, or new, things that seem to defy the common knowledge, or everyday things that we may think are explained but aren't.
12. What is the role of the human element in the progress of scientific explanation?
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
What we search for. In the end, science provides answers for our questions and our problems, and we're always limited by what we see, and what we perceive a being able to be studied; we will always be limited by our biological limitations.
13. Abel claims that: "Our perceptual knowledge is delimited by our characteristic biological capacities, and there are limits to the completeness of our theoretical structures. But our observations and our theories mutually reinforce each other....The structure of our science is pragmatically justified; it is the most reliable knowledge there is." (p. 105) Does this hold true in History as well?
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
I believe it does. We aren't going to investigate things that we have no interest in, we search for what we want, and answer the questions we ask. If we don't have any interest in it, it doesn't get studied.
14. In Bullet form, and using information from this chapter and Chapter 15 (you wrote Study Questions on November 9), please list the similarities and differences between Scientific and Historical explanations.
- Both explain events
- One attempts to answer questions about the nature of things
- while the other about events in the past
- Both have established processes to go about finding the answers
- yet the processes are different
- both use investigative methods to answer their questions
- but again use different methods
No comments:
Post a Comment