| 13109 | Chance is inexplicable, because we can only explain what happens always or usually [Aristotle] |
| 12357 | Explanation and generality are inseparable [Aristotle, by Wedin] |
| 15282 | Facts should be deducible from the theory and initial conditions, and prefer the simpler theory [Osiander, by Harré/Madden] |
| 12107 | Positivism explains facts by connecting particular phenomena with general facts [Comte] |
| 17091 | Explanation is fitting of facts into ever more general patterns of regularity [Mill, by Ruben] |
| 17550 | We give a mathematical account of a system of natural connections in order to clarify them [Heisenberg] |
| 17673 | The modern worldview is based on the illusion that laws explain nature [Wittgenstein] |
| 6755 | For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical [Hempel, by Bird] |
| 17083 | The covering-law model is for scientific explanation; historical explanation is quite different [Hempel] |
| 13049 | We must distinguish true laws because they (unlike accidental generalizations) explain things [Salmon] |
| 13051 | Deductive-nomological explanations will predict, and their predictions will explain [Salmon] |
| 13053 | A law is not enough for explanation - we need information about what makes a difference [Salmon] |
| 17684 | To explain observations by a regular law is to explain the observations by the observations [Armstrong] |
| 15556 | Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis] |
| 16167 | Laws get the facts wrong, and explanation rests on improvements and qualifications of laws [Cartwright,N] |
| 16169 | Laws apply to separate domains, but real explanations apply to intersecting domains [Cartwright,N] |
| 16171 | The covering law view assumes that each phenomenon has a 'right' explanation [Cartwright,N] |
| 16176 | Covering-law explanation lets us explain storms by falling barometers [Cartwright,N] |
| 16177 | I disagree with the covering-law view that there is a law to cover every single case [Cartwright,N] |
| 16180 | You can't explain one quail's behaviour by just saying that all quails do it [Cartwright,N] |
| 16809 | Good explanations may involve no laws and no deductions [Lipton] |
| 16810 | Deduction explanation is too easy; any law at all will imply the facts - together with the facts! [Lipton] |
| 16829 | We reject deductive explanations if they don't explain, not if the deduction is bad [Lipton] |
| 16563 | The explanation is not the regularity, but the activity sustaining it [Machamer/Darden/Craver] |
| 14342 | General laws depend upon the capacities of particulars, not the other way around [Mumford] |
| 4802 | Just citing a cause does not enable us to understand an event; we also need a relevant law [Psillos] |
| 4804 | The 'covering law model' says only laws can explain the occurrence of single events [Psillos] |
| 4805 | If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole [Psillos] |
| 16245 | Laws should help explain the things they govern, or that manifest them [Maudlin] |
| 6758 | 'Covering law' explanations only work if no other explanations are to be found [Bird] |
| 6759 | Livers always accompany hearts, but they don't explain hearts [Bird] |
| 13229 | Maybe an instance of a generalisation is more explanatory than the particular case [Steiner,M] |
| 12790 | Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything [Leuridan] |
| 14569 | It is tempting to think that only entailment provides a full explanation [Mumford/Anjum] |
| 17939 | Mathematics can reveal structural similarities in diverse systems [Colyvan] |