EXPLANATION AND REFERENCE

I argue that the importance of reference for scientific explanation has been overlooked, and that actual referential stability itself is more important in the success of scientific theories than many apparently believe. Citing the work of Van Fraassen and Lipton, I delineate cases of referential failure, both intratheoretically and intertheoretically, and remind us of the role played by reference in theories both realist and non-realist. I conclude that work on such areas as contrastive explanation cannot move forward without a better account of reference, and cite previously published material on the relationship between reference and epistemic access.     

TELEOFUNCTIONALISM AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

Fred Dretske's teleofunctional theory of content aims to simultaneously solve two ground‐floor philosophical puzzles about mental content: the problem of naturalism and the problem of epiphenomenalism. It is argued here that his theory fails on the latter score. Indeed, the theory insures that content can have no place in the causal explanation of action at all. The argument for this conclusion depends upon only very weak premises about the nature of causal explanation. The difficulties Dretske's theory encounters indicate the severe challenges involved in arriving at a robust naturalistic understanding of content.     

MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATION AND INDISPENSABILITY ARGUMENTS

We defend Joseph Melia's thesis that the role of mathematics in scientific theory is to 'index' quantities, and that even if mathematics is indispensable to scientific explanations of concrete phenomena, it does not explain any of those phenomena. This thesis is defended against objections by Mark Colyvan and Alan Baker.     

THE OBJECTS OF ACTION EXPLANATION

This paper distinguishes between various different conceptions of behaviour and action before exploring an accompanying variety of distinct things that ‘action explanation’ may plausibly amount to viz. different objectives of action explanation. I argue that a large majority of philosophers are guilty of conflating many of these, consequently offering inadequate accounts of the relation between actions and our reasons for performing them. The paper ends with the suggestion that we would do well to opt for a pluralistic understanding of action and its explanations.     

艾勒悖论(Allais Paradox)另释

艾勒悖论违背了期望效用(Expected Utility)理论的独立性(independence)原则,成为欲推翻期望效用理论的杠杆。“齐当别”抉择模型不将风险决策行为看成是追求某种“最大期望值”的抉择反应,而将其看成是“最好可能结果之间的取舍”或者“最坏可能结果之间的取舍”。此项研究设计了一“判断”技术,并用此对艾勒设计的选择问题加以检验。实验表明,判断结果所示的“齐当别”策略能满意地对艾勒选择题作出解释。