TY - JOUR
T1 - Explanatory anti-psychologism overturned by lay and scientific case classifications
AU - Waskan, Jonathan
AU - Harmon, Ian
AU - Horne, Zachary
AU - Spino, Joseph
AU - Clevenger, John
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgments For their many helpful suggestions regarding this research, our heartfelt thanks go to Mike Braverman, Bill Brewer, Mark Donahue, Andrew Higgins, Peter Machamer, and Derek Powell. This research was funded by a generous grant from the University of Illinois Campus Research Board and kind assistance from the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology.
PY - 2014/3
Y1 - 2014/3
N2 - Many philosophers of science follow Hempel in embracing both substantive and methodological anti-psychologism regarding the study of explanation. The former thesis denies that explanations are constituted by psychological events, and the latter denies that psychological research can contribute much to the philosophical investigation of the nature of explanation. Substantive anti-psychologism is commonly defended by citing cases, such as hyper-complex descriptions or vast computer simulations, which are reputedly generally agreed to constitute explanations but which defy human comprehension and, as a result, fail to engender any relevant psychological events. It is commonly held that the truth of the substantive thesis would lend support to the methodological thesis. However, the standard argument for the substantive thesis presumes that philosophers' own judgments about the aforementioned cases issues from mastery of the lay or scientific norms regarding the use of 'explanation.' Here we challenge this presumption with a series of experiments indicating that both lay and scientific populations require of explanations that they actually render their targets intelligible. This research not only undermines a standard line of argument for substantive anti-psychologism, it demonstrates the utility of psychological research methods for answering meta-questions about the norms regarding the use of 'explanation.'
AB - Many philosophers of science follow Hempel in embracing both substantive and methodological anti-psychologism regarding the study of explanation. The former thesis denies that explanations are constituted by psychological events, and the latter denies that psychological research can contribute much to the philosophical investigation of the nature of explanation. Substantive anti-psychologism is commonly defended by citing cases, such as hyper-complex descriptions or vast computer simulations, which are reputedly generally agreed to constitute explanations but which defy human comprehension and, as a result, fail to engender any relevant psychological events. It is commonly held that the truth of the substantive thesis would lend support to the methodological thesis. However, the standard argument for the substantive thesis presumes that philosophers' own judgments about the aforementioned cases issues from mastery of the lay or scientific norms regarding the use of 'explanation.' Here we challenge this presumption with a series of experiments indicating that both lay and scientific populations require of explanations that they actually render their targets intelligible. This research not only undermines a standard line of argument for substantive anti-psychologism, it demonstrates the utility of psychological research methods for answering meta-questions about the norms regarding the use of 'explanation.'
KW - explanation
KW - intelligibility
KW - psychologism
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897976048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11229-013-0304-2
DO - 10.1007/s11229-013-0304-2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84897976048
SN - 0039-7857
VL - 191
SP - 1013
EP - 1035
JO - Synthese
JF - Synthese
IS - 5
ER -