Javascript verkar inte påslaget? - Vissa delar av Lunds universitets webbplats fungerar inte optimalt utan javascript, kontrollera din webbläsares inställningar.
Du är här

Three conceptions of explaining how possibly - and one reductive account

  • Henk de Regt
  • Stephan Hartmann
  • Samir Okasha
Publiceringsår: 2012
Språk: Engelska
Sidor: 275-286
Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie: EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009
Volym: The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, 2012, Volume 1
Dokumenttyp: Del av eller Kapitel i bok
Förlag: Springer


Philosophers of science have often favoured reductive approaches to how-possibly explanation. This article identifies three varieties of how-possibly explanation and, in so doing, helps to show that this form of explanation is a rich and interesting phenomenon
in its own right.
The first variety approaches “How is it possible that X?” by showing that, despite appearances, X is not ruled out by what was believed prior to X. This can sometimes be
achieved by removing misunderstandings about the implications of one’s belief system
(prior to observing X), but more often than not it involves a modification of this belief
system so that one’s acceptance of X does not generate a contradiction.
The second variety of how-possibly explanation offers a potential how-explanation of
X; it is usually followed by a range of further potential how-explanations of the same
phenomenon. In recent literature the factual claims implied by this sort of how-possibly
explanation have been downplayed, whereas the heuristic role of mapping the space of
conceptual possibilities has been emphasized. Below I will focus especially on this
truth-bracketing sense of potentiality when I look at this variety of explanation more
The third variety of how-possibly explanation has attracted less interest. It presents a
partial how-explanation of X, and typically it aims to establish the existence of a
mechanism by which X could be, and was, generated without filling in all the details. It
stands out as the natural alternative for advocates of ontic how-possibly explanation.
This article translates divisions like those evident in Salmon’s (1984) view that
explanation-concepts can be broadly divided into epistemic, modal, and ontic across to
the context of how-possibly explanations. Moreover, it is argued that each of the three
varieties of how-possibly explanation mentioned above has a place in science. That this
is so may be especially interesting to philosophers: we are often misled by the promises
made on behalf of various why-explanation accounts, and seem to have forgotten nearly
everything about the fruitful diversity of how-possibly explanations.



  • Nursing
  • cause
  • explanation
  • mechanism
  • how-possibly explanation
  • how-explanation


  • Swedish Research Council
  • Lund university
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-2403-7
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-2404-4

Box 117, 221 00 LUND
Telefon 046-222 00 00 (växel)
Telefax 046-222 47 20
lu [at] lu [dot] se

Fakturaadress: Box 188, 221 00 LUND
Organisationsnummer: 202100-3211
Om webbplatsen