From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
The deductive-nomological model (or D-N model) is a formalized view of scientific explanation in natural language. It characterizes scientific explanations primarily as deductive arguments with at least one natural law statement among its premises. "Nomological" comes from the Greek word "νόμος" (nomos), i.e., "law."
The D-N model is known by many names, including the covering law model, the subsumption theory, Hempel's model, the Hempel-Oppenheim model, and the Popper-Hempel model of explanation (Niiniluoto, 1995). Its introduction in the philosophical literature is part of a broad general discussion about the nature of scientific explanation (i.e., what it is, what it should be, etc.).
The D-N model is taught implicitly in schools, and approximates our pre-theoretical conception of science, which many non-experts hold. It was initially formalized by Carl Hempel and Paul Oppenheim in their article Studies in the Logic of Explanation (1948). A sketch of it can be found in Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).
The model offers the following account of scientific explanation, where an explanation is set out as a formalized argument:
In the D-N model, at least one of the statements si must be a "law-like" statement—a problematic concept, but initially thought to be captured by universal affirmatives, i.e., statements of the form "all X are Y." The explanans must be appropriately testable or observable—they must have "empirical content." If the premises are all true and if the argument is deductively valid, then the following constitutes a correct deductive-nomological explanation of p:
s1. . . sn, therefore, p
As a very simple illustration, consider the following: we observe that a piece of chalk falls when released. Why does the chalk fall? A D-N explanation might look like this (without attending to all subtleties in the precisely correct statement of the premises and conclusion):
The model is influenced by logical positivism in its tone and implication, devised as a prescriptive form for scientific explanations. Due to the way that the model eschews any account of causality, scientific modelling, or simplification—and the general rejection of logical positivism—it is no longer accepted by most current philosophers of science.
|This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|