Eliminative explanation

In the course of rebuking Daniel Dennett Bill V. makes a couple of interesting claims:
1. One cannot explain what does not exist,
2. An explanation that entails the nonexistence of the explanandum is no explanation at all.
I wonder about this.  A body falling towards the Earth's surface is said to be accelerated by a force acting upon it due to the Earth's gravity.  At least, that's how we have thought about it since Newton.  But Einstein says No, there is no such thing as a gravitational 'force'.  Rather, the body accelerates because it naturally follows (shades of Aristotle) a curved geodesic in the non-flat space-time in the vicinity of the massive Earth.  What we take to be real and feel quite familiar with is explained in radically different terms.  So radical, in fact, that the explanandum doesn't appear in the explanation.  Is this a counter-example to Bill's claims?

And doesn't the explanation for the seeming continuity of ordinary matter such as a bar of steel eliminate the continuity in favour of discreteness?

And, dare I say it, doesn't Darwinian natural selection eliminate the apparent designer?

Centrifugal force?

No comments:

Post a Comment