In sounds about right for drawing the


In Ruben’s ‘Explaining
Explanations’ he uses counterexamples to purport why the dependence on a
logical argument when providing an explanation is unnecessary and redundant.


Ruben’s concern surrounds
the proper execution and deliberation of an explanation. He provides many
counterexamples to claims such as those offered by Hemple, specifically
entailing the D-N and I-S model. The covering model is considered by Hemple to
be the conditional format for presenting an argument. However, Ruben finds the
use of the model in establishing an explanation to be insufficient. Within the
counterexamples, Ruben emphasizes on the flaws the model possesses in determining
a sufficient explanandum. Overall Ruben wants the focus to be redirected on the
causal explanation rather than the logical breakdown. He disapproves with the concept
of treating an explanation as a logical argument and prefers to maintain the
relevance aspect in singular facts.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Ruben starts by proposing
two counterexamples, the first being irrelevance and the second being symmetry.
Within his theory of irrelevance Ruben addresses pre-empted causes, that being one
of several potentials that may result in the explanandum, but is not its actual
cause. These pre-empted causes, pose as a sensible explanation to a conclusion along
with the actual explanation simply rendering the former an irrelevant and
misleading component to the overall breakdown. Ruben’s symmetry explanation involved
both the Equation Laws and the Bioconditional Laws. The equation law formulates
an argument which are symmetric, if you were to flip the explanans and
explanandum the conclusion would be symmetrical. Ruben sees this as an issue
because it leaves room to pose the question “why” rather than setting up the
argument with sufficient information making it easy to fill the gaps with the
given argument. Bioconditionals being two explanans, one of which are true if
and only if the other is true.


In Ruben’s overall
assessment on the covering model, he rightly refutes it for the lack of
adequate causation. The theory opens the door to filling in any laws and
conditions that sounds about right for drawing the conclusion. I agree with
Rubens rejection and support that causation is the ingredient that makes
explanations what they are “c caused e” should be the only things said about
the case because it is not an argument so there is no need to make a logical
explanation. Some may refute the idea and seek comfort in acquiring a logical
breakdown. However, logic can still have unsound arguments that are validly constructed
which can render a given explanation inadequate ad irrelevant.


Rubens main objection to
Hemple’s model is that it is easy to create examples with derivations which fit
the model along with premises mentioning the actual cause of the event, yet
still fail to be explanatory. Having explanans and explanandums is defined as a
means to providing crucial premises that allow one to formulate a valid
conclusion. If an explanation is filled with irrelevant singular facts it
taints the legitimacy of the conclusion as well as the quality of the overall