PhilSci Archive

Explanations are like salted peanuts. Why you can't cut the route toward further reduction.

Cohnitz, Daniel (2002) Explanations are like salted peanuts. Why you can't cut the route toward further reduction. Mentis.

[img]
Preview
PDF
6 Wt03 Cohnitz.pdf

Download (392kB)

Abstract

This paper is a defense of an elaborated ideal explanatory text conception against criticism as put forward by Bob Batterman. It is argued that Batterman's critique of "philosophical" accounts of scientific explanation is inadequate.


Export/Citation: EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
Social Networking:
Share |

Item Type: Other
Creators:
CreatorsEmailORCID
Cohnitz, Daniel
Commentary on: Batterman, Robert (2004) Response to Belot's "Whose Devil? Which Details?". [Preprint]
Additional Information: Although the argument is directed against Batterman's earlier papers, it applies to "The Devil in the Details" as well.
Keywords: explanation, ideal text, Batterman, reduction
Subjects: General Issues > Explanation
Depositing User: Daniel Cohnitz
Date Deposited: 30 Mar 2004
Last Modified: 07 Oct 2010 15:12
Item ID: 1690
Publisher: Mentis
Public Domain: Yes
Conference Date: 26.-29. September 2000
Conference Location: Bielefeld, Germany
URI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/1690

Commentary/Response Threads

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item