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

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:	Creators Email ORCID 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
Subjects:	General Issues > Explanation
Date:	January 2002
Page Range:	pp. 22-36
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/1690

Commentary/Response Threads

• Belot, Gordon Whose Devil? Which Details? (deposited 14 Dec 2003)
  • Batterman, Robert Response to Belot's "Whose Devil? Which Details?". (deposited 18 Feb 2004)
    • Kallfelz, William Contracting Batterman's Asymptotic 'No-Man's Land:' Reduction Rejoins Explanation. (deposited 15 Aug 2005)
    • Cohnitz, Daniel Explanations are like salted peanuts. Why you can't cut the route toward further reduction. (deposited 30 Mar 2004) [Currently Displayed]

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item