Correlative Problem Of Scientific Explanation And It's Answer

The problem of scientific explanation in the 20 century has showed conflict and controversy between two different paradigms which belonged to different philosophy and culture. Logical positivists who were led by Carl G. Hempel from the start point of the traditional philosophy and science, sticking to objectivity and universal validity of scientific knowledge, explored universal character permeated through all process of scientific explanation and tried to find universal valid model which could be used in all of scientific explanation. Therefor, Carl G.Hempel raised covering-law model of scientific explanation, which, basing on formal logic deductive method, regarded all of phenomena explanation as a necessary relation of logical deduction from generation to particularity, and explanation and prediction was isomorphic. However, the static analysis on the process of scientific explanation, basing on formal logic, couldn't embrace all characters of scientific explanation and yet reflect the completely actual whole process of scientific explanation. Thereinto, the most radical problem was asymmetry and irrelevance of explanation. Therefor, when the model was raised, it got a lot criticism, some scholars brought forward some revisory suggestion, in which Bas C van Frassen's pragmatics theory of scientific explanation was the most influencing one. Comparison with covering-law model, the most difference of the model lied in what it interpreted the process and essential character not from the start point of the static logical character, but from the dynamic context to find the determinative factors of explanation. The pragmatics model of explanation consequently solved the problems of covering-law model, especially asymmetry and irrelevance of explanation. But it was evitable that to make the objective necessary relation of explanation relevance based on logical deductive relation into relative relation of explanation relevance based on dynamic context, which was the biggest problem of the pragmatics model of explanation.Contemporary philosophy of science debated drastically with the two most typical models. The dissertation thought that what the essential of the controversy was the correlativity of explanation, viz which formal correlativity was that scientific explanation must be required and necessary. The protectors of modernity deemed that what the scientific explanation sought was the objective correlativity, but postmodernists yet considered that the correlativity of explanation was one kinds of correlativity of context. So the correlativity of explanation was not necessary a sort of objective relation, but showed pluralistic correlativity of explanation with respect to context. Therefor, the problem of the correlativity of scientific explanation actually showed a general problem of the opposition and conflict which penetrated in all fields of thought and culture, moreover which was tightly pertinent to the big situation of dialectic relation between the modernity and post modernity showing in the turnaround of post modernity. To the basic problem, some projects of solution in the contemporary philosophy were formed including Putenan's from the internal positivism to natural positivism, Shapere's informational field theory and Apel's transcendent hermeneutic and contextism. The dissertation, based on the synthetical analysis, pointed out that Apel's transcendent hermeneutic was the most persuasive theory at present. But the dissertation also pointed out at the end of the text that any ultimate problem of human being's thought and culture could be boiled down to philosophical problem and any philosophical problems hadn't any ultimate and timeless answer.