An additional component of this picture, not present in Kuhn and essential for explicating theoretical explanatoriness, is the structuralist notion of T-theoreticity (related to other more informal, similar ones, e.g., Lewis's 1970 between "old" and "new" vocabulary, and Hempel's 1973 between "characteristic" and "antecedently understood" terms): A T-term (i.e., a term used in T-laws) is T-theoretical if every determination of its (qualitative/quantitative) extension presupposes some T-law; otherwise, a term is T-non-theoretical, i.e., if it can be determined (at least on some occasions) without presupposing T-laws.
The difference between T-theoretical and T-non-theoretical components is essential for explanatoriness. Explananda phenomena are the empirical systems that the theory aims to account for; for instance, in CM, kinematic trajectories such as planetary movement or free fall.
42), and philology's own 'peculiar explanatoriness
(The metal edge can be seen as an argument of tear only if we forego all chance of verifiability and explanatoriness
by stipulating that tear has a second sense 'move as a result of some other object's tearing', which is possible only when a directional PP is present.)
On the first aspect of significance, explanatoriness, I will have to remain silent about Lerdahl & Jackendoff's universals.
The significance (explanatoriness and irreducibility) of cultural universals is further illuminated via a better understanding of the alethic modalities involved.
For it to work means that some way has been found to get the antirealist to concede that explanatoriness
is a reason for belief.
Rather, justification depends on the "explanatoriness" possessed by the hypothesis.
When we go into details concerning the justification for believing a particular explanation the historical concern is normally overriden by further factors which are far more important (the subject's beliefs about the quality of the evidence at hand, the degree of explanatoriness possessed by the hypothesis, ...).
(Recall that Humphreys' official theory of explanation requires such invariant probability increase.) Why, so to speak, does the explanatoriness
of an unknown complex conjunction which does invariantly increase the chance of an effect transfer to the ordinary causal claims which specify just one conjunct in this conjunction?
He does however claim that explanatoriness
, in a sense which goes beyond mere empirical strength, even though a virtue in a theory, legitimately influencing the provisional acceptance of a theory (for the sake of further research for example), is very definitely not an epistemic virtue, legitimately influencing judgements of knowledge, truth or empirical adequacy (van Fraassen |1980~, pp.
is an indispensable and legitimate consideration to be taken into account in judging what constitutes scientific knowledge, in addition to experience of the observable.