Artículo

Random and Explanation. Some Remarks

Pérez Ransanz, Ana Rosa

Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía y cosechado de y cosechado de Revistas UNAM

Licencia de uso

La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico critica.ojs@filosoficas.unam.mx. Ver términos de la licencia

Procedencia del contenido

Cita

Pérez Ransanz, Ana Rosa (1990). Random and Explanation. Some Remarks. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol. 22 Núm. 66, 1990; 39-54. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115548

Descripción del recurso

Autor(es)
Pérez Ransanz, Ana Rosa
Tipo
Artículo de Investigación
Área del conocimiento
Artes y Humanidades
Título
Random and Explanation. Some Remarks
Fecha
2018-12-13
Resumen
In the first part of this paper I examine the Hempelian model for the probabilistic explanation of particular events: the inductive-statistical model. Here I focus on an examination of the notion of expectability and the implied requirement of high probability. I intend to show that expectability and high probability, in turn, answer to a deep rooted intuition concerning explanation: given an event E, the same sort of circumstances cannot explain E and -E. This intuition is called here “the basic principle”. This basic principle is also the ground for the Hempelian thesis that to explain is always to explain why. I think this thesis is wrong and I propose to distinguish between explaining why and explaining how possibly . I discuss the difficulties confronting the statistical-inductive model in the light of the assumptions here examined and suggest possible solutions. In the second part, I explore those possible solutions, in particular I examine the symmetry principle proposed by Salmon: given an stochastic process, the highly probable results are as well understood as the improbable results. This principle implies the rejection of the basic principle. I claim that the symmetry principle must be restricted to explanations how . Later I discuss the DNP model proposed by Railton and I make some criticisms to it. I try to show that if we make explicit the distinction between explaining why and explaining how in this model, we can restrict clearly the range of applicability of the symmetry principle and the basic principle, I conclude that Railton’s model constitutes an adequate basis to establish the scope and limits of probabilistic explanations of genuinely random events.
Idioma
spa
ISSN
ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

Enlaces