Matti Sintonen

The interrogative construal of explanations is one of the earliest analytical devices in the philosophy of science. The general idea is still with us, in part because Hempel and Oppenheim endorsed it in their classic formal account. But although their work starts with the claim that explaining phenomena amounts to answering why-questions, the interrogative perspective did not find its way to either the analysandum or the analysans. And it is fair to say that despite intensive discussion there still is no consensus over the scope and credentials of the perspective. One conceivable reason for this lack of progress is that we haven't had, until recently, a well-developed erotetic logic to deal with questions and answers. Another consideration has kept the doors closed to influences from another direction. Taking the idea of questions and answers literally invites us to look at explanations as anthropomorphic goods, produced and consumed by real-life people. But this brings metatheory to the vicinity of pragmatics, an area which was simply off limits for Hempel and Oppenheim. The story of pragmatics is a Cinderella story. For quite some time she has had access to the court. However, there still are a number of advisors in the court who keep whispering that the shoe didn't quite fit to begin with. Apart from the objection that pragmatics brings in an undesired element of subjectivity there is the complaint that it has failed to create sufficient order in some notoriously messy corners in the court. I shall argue, in a largely informal fashion, that Cinderella manages her daily routines with grace. The rather loose interrogative idea ramifies into distinct insights, from the logic of questions to the logic and pragmatics of conversation and inquiry at large. Roughly, I shall try to establish that where the former fails to bring philosophical illumination, the latter provides am-