I take "deiknumenon" in 1217a11 as standing for what one is trying to explain, i.e., the explanandum
, which takes the place of the conclusion in explanatory arguments (parallel occurrences can be found in APo 74a5 and 75b38).
First, what is the explanandum
? Second, what is the explanans?
Acknowledging the distinction problematizes both the explanandum
of species cohesion and the explanans of gene flow that are central to the view discussed here.
The original explanandum
was the appearance of contingency of necessary statements such as (1)-(4).
McGrath's explanation of (Success) runs into the kinds of difficulties described above, but it also involves another kind of mistake, the mistake of substituting an inappropriate paraphrase for the explanandum
. (Success) is a generalization about entailment between propositions, and not the fact that true beliefs about our goals tend to facilitate success in achieving them.
The latter explanandum
is properly addressed by describing the mechanism of heredity.
En contra de estas lecturas, Angioni defiende en su articulo tres tesis centrales: i) que la demostracion tiene por objeto principal captar la causa para un cierto explanandum
; ii) a su vez, y como ha expuesto en otros articulos, defiende nuevamente que la nocion de causa posee una estructura triadica fundamental y que esta estructura es clave para que el silogismo pueda explicar su propia conclusion; iii) por ultimo, Angioni sostiene que Aristoteles habria utilizado el formato del silogismo justamente porque entre sus beneficios habria encontrado que dicho formato es el que mejor destaca la nocion de explicacion por la causa apropiada.
With respect to the question from where empirical evidence p derives, we are able to affirm that a fact is explained under the profile of the science when the assertion that describes it (the explanandum
) is deduced from an explanans constituted by initial conditions or causes covered by universal laws.
But in that case judgements about the complexity of a purported explanans relative to its explanandum
would be empirically justified; they could not be made a priori as Peacocke needs them to be.
First, the term here does not have its usual factive implication with respect to the explanandum
. In asserting that <"Whales are fish" is true iff whales are fish> is an explanation of <"Whales are fish" is true>, the deflationist is not implying that "Whales are fish" is true.
In this way the explanandum
is said to be rendered 'intelligible'; from the story we see how the events in question are possible .