Abstract
In his later years, Wesley Salmon believed that the two dominant models of scientific explanation (his own causal‐mechanical model and the unificationist model) were reconcilable. Salmon envisaged a ‘new consensus’ about explanation: he suggested that the two models represent two ‘complementary’ types of explanation, which may ‘peacefully coexist’ because they illuminate different aspects of scientific understanding. This paper traces the development of Salmon's ideas and presents a critical analysis of his complementarity thesis. Salmon's thesis is rejected on the basis of two objections, and an alternative view of the relation between different types of explanation is proposed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
