Discussion Questions on Woodward (I)

1.  What dilemma does Woodward see concerning explanation in the special sciences (p. 198)?

2.  Woodward summaries the key elements of his view as (1) that explanatory relationships can in principle be used for manipulation and (2) a generalization is explanatory if and only if it is invariant under intervention.  What do these theses mean and how are they related to one another?

3.  Without getting into all the detail, what is an "intervention" and why are interventions important?

4. Woodward argues that causal explanation is linked to the possibility of exhibiting patterns of counterfactual dependence.  What does this mean?  Do you think  he is right?

5.  What does Woodward mean by "invariance"? In his view, invariance comes in degrees. How does one measure how invariant a generalization is.  To what is the degree of invariance of a generalization relevant?

6.  What is the point of the example on p. 205 from Haavelmo?

7.  How does Woodward's account of scientific explanation compare to the deductive nomological model?