© 1998 by British Society for the Philosophy of Science
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Articles |
Mathematical Explanation and the Theory of Why-Questions
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Van Fraassen and others have urged that judgements of explanations are relative to why-questions; explanations should be considered good in so far as they effectively answer why-questions. In this paper, I evaluate van Fraassen's theory with respect to mathematical explanation. I show that his theory cannot recognize any proofs as explanatory. I also present an example that contradicts the main thesis of the why-question approachan explanation that appears explanatory despite its inability to answer the why-question that motivated it. This example shows how explanatory judgements can be context-dependent without being why-question-relative.