Diana Ciuca 1

- 1st Attempt at Level 3 - 7th attempt overall - Rewrite of 2nd attempt at Level

In Philosophy of Science: A Short Introduction, Samir Okasha argues against Carl Hempels covering law model. Okasha proposes that causality-based explanations are more accurate at giving accounts of phenomena through explanation. Scientific explanations answer explanation-seeking why questions by using explanans (what is explaining) to explain an explanandum (what is being explained). Hempels model depicts explanation as the construction of a conclusion from a premise that tells us why a phenomena is true. In accord with his model, the premises must all be true, they must entail the conclusion, and one premise must be a general law. Therefore, explanation follows deductively from a law assumed to be true--a universal generalization. For instance, Newton concludes that planets move in ellipses around the sun deductively from his law of universal gravitation along with some supplementary true assumptions, fitting Hempels model. Therefore, Hempels model characterizes the nature of scientific explanation with pretty good accuracy, with two exceptions. Okashas prime argument is that in scientific explanation, what is being explained should be relevant to the premises explaining it. He illustrates this with the example of John and birth control. John is a man who is taking birth control and is not pregnant. We can deduce using Hempels model why John is not pregnant (Premise 1: John takes birth control; Premise 2: Birth control is effective in preventing pregnancy; Conclusion: John is preventing himself from getting pregnant due to his birth control use). However, this explanation overlooks that his genetic makeup is the more relevant answer for why he is not pregnant. In these situations, the explanation for what occurs is not the correct explanation for why it occurs. Hempels model gives us an inaccurate scientific explanation for a phenomenon which would be better explained by causation.

Since Hempels model uses deduction to arrive at a conclusion, it does not use inference to the best explanation (a form of induction) which, by definition, gives a relevant explanation for something. Thus, he propagates the alternative theory of causation which better accounts for the gaps in Hempels model, most importantly relevancy. A causal-based explanation of a phenomenon is the same as giving a cause (or causality-based account) for the incident. Recall Newtons theory of elliptical orbit: the movement of planets was caused by an attraction between planets and the sun. His law of universal gravity explains ellipses and shows that gravitational attraction causes them. Using causation to define how Newton explained elliptical orbits links separate phenomena through induction more cohesively than deduction through Hempels model achieves. Okashas argument takes the form: P1: In a good scientific explanation, the explanans must be relevant to the explanandum. P2: If Hempels model is correct then there are good scientific explanations where the explanans are not relevant to the explanandum. C: Hempels covering law model is not correct. I will argue against his first premise by exemplifying a good scientific explanation in which the explanans are not relevant to the explanadum. causal accounts attempts to make links between events by cause and effect. For an explanan to be relevant, it must be directly pertinent to the explanandum as seen in causation. Since looking for the cause of something tends to give a relevant explanan to an explanandum, causal-based accounts are by definition relevant. Empirical evidence can be used to explain a phenomena, as illustrated by the scientific method. The main method of giving causes to events is by observing how one phenomenon affects another. Scientists, when testing hypothesis assume causal links between independent and dependent variables. This method assumes causal links to prove or disprove a hypothesis based on observable evidence. Watson and Cricks discovery of the structiure of DNA was not acquired by the scientific method and therefore was not inductively arrived at. They used previously acquired

evidence that hinted at how adenine and thymine bond as well as cytosine and guanine. However, these are not necessarily relevant explanans for the structure, yet they help explain how the structure is formed. Given that Watson and Cricks explanandum of how DNA is structured is a good scientific explanation that was not arrived at by relevant explanans, then Okashas premise is false and his conclusion is not entailed by the argument.

Works Cited Okasha, Samir. "Explanation in Science." Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. 46-52. Print.

Causation. Although the scientific method uses induction to assume casual links and confirm a hypothesis, the hypothesis may still prove false. For example, a scientist hypothesizes that salt melts in water because it is dyed purple. Regardless that salt melts in any type of water, his hypothesis will hold true, leading him to believe that it is due to the characteristics of the water (most notably, color) that salt melts, because he has no reason to believe otherwise. He pours salt into water dyed purple. The salt slowly dissolves as he predicted: purple water must cause salt to melt. Based on his empirical observations, what he observes is causally linked and he can induce that his conclusion is true since the salt melts. However, unlike Hempels model, causation does not need to appeal to any general law to be a legitimate scientific explanation, which is why his assertion is myopic. The scientists explanation is relevant because it addresses the properties of salt melting by addressing the nature of the water, but it is limited in scope. Since causal links tend to be empirically induced, observable theories may give incomplete causes although relevant ones. Therefore, if we applied a general law to this situation and structured the scientists hypothesis to fit Hempels model, it would provide for a more accurate description of what actually occurs. Law: Salt melts in water because Premise: Salt will be added to purple water Conclusion: Salt will melt in purple water Granted, the scientist does not limit himself to only working with purple water. However, that is because he appealed to a general law in justifying his explanation instead of using only empirical evidence to assume a causal link. Hempels model is capable of producing both a relevant and accurate response, whereas utilizing only causation would lead to a false induction if no general laws are invoked.