According to deductive-nomological model, the explanation of a fact is thus reduced to a logical relationship between statements: the explanandum is a consequence of the explanans. This is a common method in the philosophy of logical positivism. Pragmatic aspects of explanation are not token into consideration. Another feature is that an explanation requires scientific laws; facts are explained when they are subsumed under laws. So the question arise about the nature of a scientific law. According to Hempel and Oppenheim, a fundamental theory is defined as a true statement whose quantifiers are not removable (ie a fundamental theory is not equivalent to a statement without quantifiers), and which do not contain individual constants. Every generalized statement which is a logical consequence of a fundamental theory is a derived theory. The underlying idea for this definition is that a scientific theory deals with general properties expressed by universal statements. References to specific space-time regions or to individual things are not allowed. For example, Newton laws are true for all bodies in every time in every space. But there are laws (eg the original Kepler laws) that are valid under limited conditions and refer to specific objects, like the Sun and its planets. Therefore there is a distinction between a fundamental theory, which is universal without restrictions, and a derived theory that can contain a reference to individual objects. Note that it is required that theories are true; implicitly, this means that scientific laws are not tools to make predictions, but they are genuine statements that describe the world -- a realistic point of view.
I'd put this into my own words, except that I've only got about 5 minutes, and I'd mess it up entirely (probably even if I had all evening). This is a far more complicated question ("What is a scientific law?") than you'd think it would be.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pisacreta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Law of EffectProfessor, Psychology, Ferris State University Big Rapids, MI 49307 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Hey Folks:
Most of us cover the Law of Effect in the learning chapter of our intro courses. I have a question. Laws usually involve some precise mathematics, e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity, the gas laws. The Law of Effect doesn't provide some predictive mathematics. So, why is it a law?
Rip Pisacreta, Ph.D.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
