Definitions for some of the more obscure terms found in the reading:

a priori: prior to (or independent of) experiential evidence; evidence we have just by thinking through a question (a priori evidence contrasts with a posteriori or empirical evidence). From Latin, meaning “to the prior.”

empirical: a claim or evidence derived from experience, whether through your five senses or scientific experiment (also called a posteriori, in contrast with a priori).

teleological:from Greek: telos – purpose/goal; logos – logic/reason: “the logic behind the purpose.” A teleological argument is an argument that attempts to give reasons for an empirical event in terms of that event’s purpose or goal or function. A teleological explanation is an explanation that attempts to explain an event by appealing to its purpose or aim.

reductive: an explanation that attempts to completely explain an event in terms of something more basic (for example, a machine can be reductively explained by describing how all its parts work). A non-reductive explanation appeals to something in addition to those basic components (for example, purpose, function, or unobservable entities).

1. Explain the causal theory of explanation and the dilemma that unobservable entities pose for this theory. Use examples.      

2. Explain one way of employing the distinction between truth and explanation.

3.In your own words, explain what Hempel means by “deductive-nomological” explanation. Explain how Wesley Salmon’s example challenges the adequacy of the deductive-nomological model.

4. What does Hempel refer to as the “inductive-statistical” type of explanation? What is the asymmetry problem?

5. Based on your understanding of the concepts in this course so far, explain the relationship between Hempel’s theory of explanation and arguments.

6. Explain why Wesley Salmon rejected epistemic theory of causation in favor of a causal theory.

7. What is “naturalism” in philosophy of science?

8. How does naturalism undermine the idea that knowledge is prior to understanding? (Refer to the definition of “a priori” above.)

9. What is an “inference to the best explanation,” and why does Van Fraassen think it not an “objective measure of the likelihood that [an explanation] is true”?

10. Take a moment to think of a scientific claim you’ve been told. Come up with a plausible explanation for why that’s true. (Note: do not give an argument that it is true, but an explanation for why it is true.) Use an internet search to help if you need to, but keep your explanation simple (so that we both understand it; no mathematical modelling, please).