Malcolm Forster

Deductive logic is about the property of arguments called validity. An argument has this property when its conclusion follows deductively from its premises. Here’s an example: If Alice is guilty then Bob is guilty, and Alice is guilty. Therefore, Bob is guilty. The important point is that the validity of this argument has nothing to do with the content of the argument. Any argument of the following form (called modus ponens) is valid: If P then Q, and P, therefore Q. Any claims substituted for P and Q lead to an argument that is valid. Probability theory is also content-free. This is why deductive logic and probability theory have traditionally been the main tools in philosophy of science.

A and B in signaling games (Lewis 1969). Members of the population, such as our prehistoric pair, are occasionally faced with the following ‘game’. Let one of the players be the receiver and the other the sender. The receiver needs to know whether B is true or not, but only possesses information about whether A is true or not. In some environmental contexts, A is sufficient for B, in others it is not. The sender knows nothing about A or B, but does know that A is sufficient for B in some environments. This is a higher-order signaling game in which both players can benefit from sharing the information that they possess. How does a communication strategy evolve, and is it evolutionarily stable?

The distinction itself is best explained as follows. At the empirical level (at the bottom), there are curves, or functions, or laws, such as PV = constant the Boyle’s example, or a = M/r 2 in Newton’s example. The first point is that such formulae are actually ambiguous as to the hypotheses they represent. They can be understood in two ways. In order to make this point clear, let me first introduce a terminological distinction between variables and parameters. Acceleration and distance (a and r) are variables in Newton’s formula because they represent quantities that are more or less directly measured. The distinction between what is directly measured and what it is not is to be understood relative the context. All I mean is that values of acceleration and distance are determined independently of the hypothesis, or theory, under consideration. I do not mean that their determination involves no kind of inference at all. For instance, acceleration is the instantaneous change in velocity per unit time, and this is not something that is directly determined from raw data that records the position of the moon at consecutive points in time. It is consistent with that raw data that the motion of the moon is actually discontinuous, so that the moon has no acceleration. So, there are definitely theoretical assumptions make about the moon’s motion that are used to estimate the moon’s acceleration at a particular time. But these assumptions are not unique to Newton’s theory. The same assumptions are also made by the rival hypotheses under consideration. In fact, the existence of quantities such as instantaneous acceleration is only called into question by the far more recent theory of quantum mechanics. Likewise, in the case of Boyle’s law, there is no controversy in viewing the volume of the trapped air as being determined in a way that does not make use of the theory that Boyle is introducing.

This paper aims to show how Whewell's notions of consilience and unification-explicated in more modern probabilistic terms provide a satisfying treatment of cases of scientific discovery Which require the postulatioin component causes to explain complex events. The results of this analysis support the received view that the increased unification and generality of theories leads to greater testability, and confirmation if the observations are favorable. This solves a puzzle raised by Cartwright in How the Laws of Physics Lie about the nature of explanation by the composition of causes.

Section 2 will begin by formulating Reichenbach’s principle of common cause in a more general way than is usual but in a way that makes the idea behind it a lot clearer. The way that Salmon has pushed the principle into the services of scientific realism will be explained in terms of an example, van Fraassen objects, Salmon modifies his stand and van Fraassen rejoins - all in section 2. (See van Fraassen 1980, chapter 2).In this episode I think van Fraassen right in claiming - against Salmon that there is no categorical imperative for common cause explanation, and I add my own examples in section 3. The first example ‘is the explanation of the correlation between the equilibrium positions of two objects on a balance in terms of their property of “mass” and the law of moments.

There is an interesting problem concerning component causes posed by Cartwright (1983) in her book How the Laws of Physics Lie, which is easily explained in terms of a simple example. Consider a cup sitting on the table. Why doesn’t it move? The explanation given by Newtonian mechanics is that the cup is experiencing two forces-the downward force of gravity and the upward ‘elastic’ force of the table-and these two forces exactly cancel to produce a zero resultant force. This zero resultant force then produces a zero acceleration, which ‘explains’ why the cup doesn’t move. This rather simple, yet typical, example of theoretical explanation raises a surprisingly deep puzzle: What justification is there for believing in the existence of the component forces if they are redundant to the explanation? For it does not really matter what size the component forces are so long as their resultant is zero.