Cited by 45Philosophy and History of ScienceEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

Does the counterfactual theory of explanation apply to non-causal explanations in metaphysics?

Reutlinger, Alexander·2017·European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13194-016-0155-z

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reutlinger, A.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Reutlinger, Alexander
Venue
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Published
2016-08-19
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
239-256
ISSN
  • 1879-4912 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-4920
OpenAlex
W2518625353
Cited by
45
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
non-causal explanation, metaphysical explanation, scientific explanation, pure mathematics, philosophy of explanation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review