과학적 설명의 구획기준으로서의 헴펠의 연역-법칙적 모델에 관한 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 1948, Carl G. Hempel published an essay, "Studies in the Logic of Explanation". It set out a characterization of one kind of deductive argument that does constitute a legitimate type of scientific explanation. It came later to be known as the Deductive-Nomological Model or the Covering Law Model. This thesis investigates meaning of Hempel's the deductive-nomological model, offering a criterion of demarcation for scientific explanation.
Hempel set forth four conditions of adequacy of D-N model, as a criterion to distinct between scientific explanation and un scientific explanation:
(conditions of adequacy)
R1. The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans.
R2. The explanans must contain at least one general law.
R3. The explanans must have empirical content.
R4. The sentences constituting the explanans must be true.
The conditions of adequacy can be summarized in the following schema:
(D-N schema)
◁그림삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요)
These conditions of adequacy and D-N schema are evidently fulfilled in the following example:
All blaze containing natrium is yellow
This is blaze containing natrium
This blaze is yellow
In the above argument the law is the covering law. And an argument form is modus ponens
according to the Hempel's D-N model, correct scientific explanation is costituted such two basic factors that is, the covering law concept and the modus ponens constitute. According to Hempel, if a certain argument fulfill, then it is correct explanatory argument. If not so, incorrect.
But because of excessive formalistic insistence, Hempel's D-N model come into question, in scientific explanation. The first question is that in respect to the covering law concept. The second question is that in respect to a general law. and third question is that relate to 'structural identity of explanation and prediction' thesis. Through these arguments, I attempt to investigate that Hempel's D-N model is incomplete in as a criterion of demarcation that make a distinction between scientific explanation and unscientific explanation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 문제 제기 = 1
• Ⅱ. D-N 모델의 형식적 구조와 그 특징 = 5
• Ⅱ-1. D-N 모델에서의 법칙의 역할과 논리적 구조 = 13
• Ⅱ-2. 설명과 예측의 구조적 동일성 = 17
• Ⅲ. D-N 모델의 문제점 = 20
• Ⅲ-1. 일반 법칙에 대한 헴펠의 특성화의 문제점 = 21
• Ⅲ-2. D-N 모델의 포괄 법칙에 대한 스크리븐의 비판 = 24
• Ⅲ-3. 설명-예측의 비동일적 특성과 확률-통계적 설명 = 28
• Ⅳ. 맺는말 = 35
• 참고문헌 = 38
• SUMMARY = 41