Was the truth ever meant to explain much? A critique of Nancy Cartwright
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12006501 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael X Ashooh (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, corresponding author), Paul C L Tang (California State University, Long Beach, California, USA) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 615-621 |
| Publication date | 1999-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Social Science Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0362-3319 • E-ISSN: 1873-5355 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1016/s0362-3319(99)00043-9 |
| OpenAlex | W2005382783 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
Nancy Cartwright discusses the concept of scientific law and makes some illuminating points concerning laws as true descriptions of what is observed in nature and scientific laws that are used to explain what occurs in nature. The two concepts do not always coincide. She thinks that the identity of truth with explanation is fostered by the D-N Model of explanation. We argue that Cartwright misrepresents the nature of the D-N Model and that Hempel’s treatment of scientific explanation can accommodate Cartwright’s criticisms
Aesthetics · Epistemology · Identity (music · Sociology · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science
| Highly cited | No |
|---|