Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Factors for unification
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his paper Explanatory Unification, Kitcher argues that the theory of unification is a better explanatory theory than the covering law model. Where unification represents the purpose of scientific explanation as having an objective insight, the covering law model proposes a subjective insight. I will first summarize Kitcher’s argument for unification. I will then assert that unification is vulnerable to the metaphysical problem of causal theory and correct explanations. I will show how this objection challenges unification in two ways by using David Lewis’ example of the non-unified world. Kitcher responds to this objection in his paper Explanatory Unification and Causal Structure. I argue that Lewis presents two problems with his example of the non-unified world, yet Kitcher only responds to one. I will distinguish the difference between the two problems and propose that Kitcher fails to give an adequate response to the second problem.
Kitcher argues that what makes for a good explanation, or what makes a theory explanatory, is that it unifies or ties together different phenomenon or laws (Kitcher 1981, Pg. 711). The explanatory power of unification is a matter of deriving various phenomena using the same type of reasoning pattern as the argument (Kitcher 1981, Pg.721). For example, Newtonian physics showed that the argument pattern of ‘principa’ could be extended to derive descriptions of several distinct phenomena (Kitcher 1981, Pg. 716). Newtonian physics consists of a couple of simple laws such as the law of gravity and the law of attraction. These laws unify all kinds of phenomena in the world by using the same type of reasoning pattern. Thus, Newtonian physics extends its explanatory power into all kinds of phenomen...
... middle of paper ...
...s theory of gravity in favor of Einstein’s theory. However, by doing this we gain truth but lose unification. Truth is compatible with unification with respect to alternative theories of explanation, like causal theory. However, truth is incompatible with unity within the theory of unification. Kitcher’s response fails to redeem the theory of unification against both of the worries presented by Lewis’ objection. Thus, Kitcher fails to prove that unification is an adequate theory of explanation.
References
(1) Curd, Martin, and J. A. Cover. "Philip Kitcher Explanatory Unification. 1981" Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W. Norton &, 1998. 711-34. Print.
(2) Kitcher, Philip, and Wesley C. Salmon, eds. Scientific Explanation. Vol. 13, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
... a theory should be able to explain a wide variety of things, not just only what it was intended to explain.
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
As such, I believe that I have provided potential alternatives to the question that the argument from vagueness attempts to solve. While the arguments that I have provided for the alternatives are prone to errors, the goal is to show that it is possible to entertain such alternatives as opposed to accepting universalism, and hence four-dimensionalism. As the non-temporal argument suffers from this weakness, so too does the temporal one.
It is well-known that a central issue in the famous debate between Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke is the nature of space. Leibniz and Clarke, who did not only take a Newtonian standpoint, but was even assisted in designing his answers to Leibniz by Sir Isaac Newton himself, (2) disagree on the ontological status of space rather than on its (geometrical or physical) structure. Closely related to the disagreement on the ontological status of space is a further disagreement on the existence of vacuums in nature: While Leibniz denies it, Clarke asserts it.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Greene continues with his explanations of the special theory of relativity.Chapter 3: Of Warps and Ripples Green begins the chapter by describing "Newton's View of Gravity" and continues by discussing the incompatibility of Newtonian Gravity and Special Relativity. The author also talks about how Einstein discovered the link between acceleration and the warping of space and time. Greene also discuses the basic aspects of General Relativity. He later points out how the two theories of relativity effect black holes, the big bang, and the expansion of space.Chapter 4: Microscopic Weirdness This chapter describes, in detail, the workings of quantum mechanics.
In a broad sense science is a systematic quest for knowledge. With this working definition in mind one can see that many areas of human endeavors could qualify as science. Therefore, Popper attempts to find a point of demarcation between science and psuedo-science. "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of theory."(1)
The same function that gives unity to the different representations in a judgment also gives unity to the mere synthesis of different representations in an intuition, which, expressed generally, is called the pure concept of understanding. The same understanding, therefore, and indeed by means of the very same actions through which it brings the logical form of a judgment into concepts by means of the analytical unity, also brings a transcendental content into its representations by means of the synthetic unity of the manifold in intuition in general, on account of which they are called pure concepts of the understanding that pertain to objects a priori; this can never be accomplished by universal logic. A79, B105
J.J.C Smart proposes that a scientific explanation of consciousness must fall with in universal physical laws. Furthermore, if science could not explain consciousness within scientific laws, than we would have a problem called a nomological dangler. For Smart, this is unbelievable. It would seem that this move by Smart is one based on scientific bias. The nature of consciousness rests in the experience of the first person account, and if philosophy of mind is to have a complete scientific knowledge of the...
For the purposes of this paper, a grasp of the differences between logical, metaphysical, and natural supervenience will be sufficient to understand the arguments put forth by materialists, property dualists, and eliminativists. Logical supervenience can be characterized by the claim: B-properties supervene logically on A-properties if it is logically impossible for two situations to have the same B-properties without also sharing the same A-properties.
In The Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner address the impact of the “Newtonian worldview” on our ability to understand and explain the phenomena of the physical world. Science has been able to greatly advance our knowledge of the natural world over the last several centuries largely due to this worldview. In this paper, five tenets of the Newtonian worldview will be summarized; two of these points—those found to be the most and least defensible—will be discussed in greater detail. As a final point, a discussion will be laid out regarding which of the five precepts, if rejected by modern physics, would be the most disturbing to give up.
In 1905, Albert Einstein wrote his paper on the special theory of relativity (Prosper). This theory has the reputation as being so exotic that few people can understand it. On the contrary, special relativity is simply a system of kinematics and dynamics, based on a set of postulates that is different from those of classical mec...
“How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?” In The Grand Design, a 2010 book written by theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, two authors claim that they have found a philosophical approach – Model Dependent Realism (MDR) – as the solution to this fundamental question of philosophy. Combining the ideas raised from methodology of mathematics and Physics, MDR leads a possible path to reconcile the uncertain nature of modern science and the idealistic pursuit of absolute truth – perhaps the theory of everything (TOE).
Since Plato, the traditional position on what instances of belief constitute knowledge is a justified, true belief. This justified, true belief (JTB) theory was objected to by Edmund Gettier in 1963, through counterexamples displaying instances of justified, true beliefs which are not knowledge. Many attempts since then have been made to modify the traditional position, with Alan Goldman’s essay “A Causal Theory of Knowledge” chief among the responses. In this paper, I will demonstrate how Goldman’s addition of a causal connection to the traditional analysis of knowledge is insufficient in overcoming the obstacle of Gettier cases. I will do so by first showing the difficulties in reconstruction a causal connection, and secondly by identifying shortcomings of the application his theory to several types of knowledge. Lastly, I will present an example of a justified, true belief which includes Goldman’s concept of causal connection, but only incidentally with the fact that makes it true.
important to this discussion of the origins of modern physics is the fact that some ancient