東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Against the Linguistic Strategy for ...

Fensholt, Rebecca.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation./
Author:	Fensholt, Rebecca.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2017,
Description:	34 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International57-02(E).
Subject:	Philosophy of science. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10282847
ISBN:	9780355346916

Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation.
Fensholt, Rebecca.

Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 34 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Kansas, 2017.

Philosophers of science are interested in characterizing the nature of scientific explanation. Much of the debate has been about which format or structures best represent, and thus explain, scientific phenomena. Pushing back against these representational views, Craver has been developing an ontic account of scientific explanation. According to this view, explanations are not representations of things in the real world but are the things in the world themselves. In a recent paper, Craver (2013) argues in favor of the ontic view by appeal to our use of the word 'explain.' In this paper, I evaluate Craver's linguistic strategy and argue that it fails to provide support for the ontic view. Craver introduces a distinction between four senses of 'explain' and argues that one sense - the ontic sense - is the literal and foundational sense. This is taken to justify the ontic view. In this paper, I argue that linguistic tests for primacy do not privilege the ontic sense of 'explain,' and in fact, indicate that the ontic sense is subordinate. I conclude by raising some general questions about the merits of the linguistic strategy as method of justification for the ontic view of scientific explanation.

ISBN: 9780355346916Subjects--Topical Terms:

2079849
Philosophy of science.

Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation.
LDR:02127nmm a2200301 4500 001 2157329
005 20180531103648.5
008 190424s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355346916
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10282847
035 $a (MiAaPQ)ku:15350
035 $a AAI10282847
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Fensholt, Rebecca. $3 3345137
245 1 0 $a Against the Linguistic Strategy for the Ontic Conception of Scientific Explanation.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 34 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.
500 $a Adviser: Sarah Robins.
502 $a Thesis (M.A.)--University of Kansas, 2017.
520 $a Philosophers of science are interested in characterizing the nature of scientific explanation. Much of the debate has been about which format or structures best represent, and thus explain, scientific phenomena. Pushing back against these representational views, Craver has been developing an ontic account of scientific explanation. According to this view, explanations are not representations of things in the real world but are the things in the world themselves. In a recent paper, Craver (2013) argues in favor of the ontic view by appeal to our use of the word 'explain.' In this paper, I evaluate Craver's linguistic strategy and argue that it fails to provide support for the ontic view. Craver introduces a distinction between four senses of 'explain' and argues that one sense - the ontic sense - is the literal and foundational sense. This is taken to justify the ontic view. In this paper, I argue that linguistic tests for primacy do not privilege the ontic sense of 'explain,' and in fact, indicate that the ontic sense is subordinate. I conclude by raising some general questions about the merits of the linguistic strategy as method of justification for the ontic view of scientific explanation.
590 $a School code: 0099.
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0290
710 2 $a University of Kansas. $b Philosophy. $3 1030132
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 57-02(E).
790 $a 0099
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10282847