Explanation

By G. Schumann. 1855

This chapter discusses the explanation of historical philosophical views. Strictly speaking, the explanation of the philosophical view is the task of the philosopher. What the historian is concerned with is the historical fact that a certain view was held by a certain person in a certain context, the historical fact that this view came to be held by a whole group of philosophers, the historical fact that it became part of the state of the art to think of it as an acceptable or even a true view. Thus, historians do not explain the philosophical view in terms of what they take to be reasons for it but in terms of the reasons for which it was actually held because they were thought to constitute adequate grounds for holding it. The question then arises why a philosopher would hold this to be adequate grounds for the view. And in the simplest case, the answers will be in terms of another historical fact; namely that, by the standards of the time, this would have seemed to be adequate grounds to philosophers then, which raises the further question of why philosophers then would have taken this to be adequate grounds. At this point, one could go on to explain this by referring to further historical facts; namely, the fact that philosophers of the time would have explained this in such and such a way.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Juan David Correa
2. Katherine A. Keith
3. I. Henriques
4. Elias Bareinboim
5. Bryan W. Husted
6. Duligur Ibeling
7. David D. Jensen
8. Thomas F. Icard III

Citations in the corpus

• On Pearl’s Hierarchy and the Foundations of Causal Inference (2022, methodology): “The use of nested counterfactuals led to a very natural and general treat­ ment of direct, indirect, and spurious effects, including a precise understanding of their relationship in non-linear systems [Pearl 2012, VanderWeele 2015, Zhang and Bareinboim 2018].”
• Beyond Good Intentions: Designing CSR Initiatives for Greater Social Impact (2020, background): “However, through a design approach, scholars may develop field-tested technological rules and solution concepts that provide strong grounding for application to other settings (Bunge, 1967).”
• Text and Causal Inference: A Review of Using Text to Remove Confounding from Causal Estimates (2020, background): “Mediator variables require a different set of adjustments than confounders to find the “natural direct effect” between treatment and outcome (VanderWeele, 2015; Pearl, 2014).”