Abstract

Is a response to a criticism, posed by an anthropologist, of the Statistical Relevance model of explanation. The author claims that the objection does not hold. Although he believes that the model must be supplemented by causal considerations, he maintains that the S‐R schema constitutes a correct basis on which acceptable explanations can be erected. In answering Cartmill's question, the author examines the high‐probability requirement of Hempel's Inductive Statistical model, and clarifies some fundamental features of the S‐R model. His response connects directly to van Fraassen's pragmatic theory, which is discussed from a different angle in Ch. 11.