Explanations, Predictions, and Laws

CARL G. HEMPEL '-Fb v Ga v Ha'. Kim shows generally that his additional requirement blocks the proofs offered by Eberle, Kaplan, and Montague for the five theorems that "trivialize" the defintions (7.8) and (7.9). However, it would be desirable to ascertain more clearly to what extent the additional requirement is justifiable, not on the ad hoc ground that it blocks those proofs, but in terms of the rationale of scientific explanation. Kaplan approaches the problem by formulating three very plausible requirements cf adequacy for any analysis of the deductive type of explanation here to be explicated. He then shows that the analysis proposed in Part III does not satisfy those requirements jointly, and that the difficulties exhibited in the five trivializing theorems are linked to this shortcoming. Finally, he revises the definitions offered in Part I11 so that they meet the requirements of adequacy and avoid the difficulties we have been discussing. For the details of this illuminating contribution, the reader will have to consult Kaplan's article.