Hempel's Covering Law Model Of Explanation

Within what was discussed in class and what I have read in Okasha’s “Philosophy of Science,” it is clear that scientists try to break down science into one definition, but they all have their own ideas on what science actually is. One of the biggest debates seems to be whether or not science should be based on induction or deduction. Inductive reasoning moves from specific instances to a generalized conclusion, whereas deductive reasoning is based on the idea that if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true. In simpler terms, the two types of reasoning are opposites of each other as deductive inferences are formulated with generalized instances to come to a specific conclusion. However, in order for
Although the Covering Law model is based on deduction, some argue it may not fit into all scientific explanations. For instance, it is said that explanation is an asymmetric relation because x can explain y, but given the same laws and evidences, y may not explain x. Hempel’s law does not respect this asymmetry as it implies that explanation should be a symmetric relation. I find it more difficult to come to a concrete conclusion concerning this model; I agree with the three elements that should be utilized to form a sound argument or explanation, but I also see the issue with its implication. I would argue that explanations can be formed using the covering law model whether the relation is asymmetric or not; however, the symmetry of the relation should be included in the explanation regardless for the same reason why scientists need to include in their findings any confounding variables that may have effected their results; it does not make the information useless, but it allows other scientists to understand the full experiment and resulting theory. The symmetry should not discredit the argument or explanation; it simply allows other theories to be formed based on what was