Talk:Deductive-nomological model

Philosophy: Science Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

clarity and footnotes

Even for a philosophically technical subject, the language of this page is dense and hard to follow. Some further editing oriented solely toward clarification and flow on a sentence-by-sentence level would be helpful, ideally by someone familiar with the technical subject matter.

The extensive discursive footnotes also seem inappropriate to me. Such material, if important, should be included in the body of the page; if not important enough for that, it should be deleted. Eichhoernchen (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fix modelling link

I'm not very familiar with this concept, so the following is a problem I can not fix on my own. If someone could help, that would be great. Regard the following text in the article: due to the way the model eschews any account of causality, modelling, or simplification, it is no longer accepted as dogma. The word "modelling" is linked to a disambiguation page. I don't really know what type of modelling is being referred to here, so if someone could pick an article from the disambiguation page, and fix this link to go directly to that article, that would be much better. Schwael 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dogma, doctrine

Likewise, I'm not familiar with this concept, though I found this article generally very clear and informative. However, the last sentence (the one Schwael picks out above) confuses me:

Is the article claiming that the D-N model was once accepted dogmatically (i.e., in the pejorative sense, as an unquestioned, quasi-ideological doctrine), but is no longer accepted as such - indeed, is now regarded as having been once accepted or popular for purely dogmatic reasons? or

Is the article claiming that the D-N model is now accepted as dogma (in the non-pejorative sense, as an orthodox doctrine), having once been viewed with suspicion?

I assume the former, since the article implies that 'the general rejection of logical positivism' was a key turning point in its fortunes, and that the D-N model is 'positivist in tone and implication'. I guess my problem stems purely from the ambivalent connotations of 'it is no longer accepted as dogma' - is 'it's acceptance is no longer widespread' an acceptable paraphrase? Baadog (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The D-N model is known by many names, including the covering law model..." This statement is not accurate. According to Hempel (Philosophy of Natural Science, Chapter 5) the D-N model is only one version of the Covering Law Model, the other version being the Inductive-Statistical model.