ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses how the notion of cognitive significance enters into discussions of explanation: Explanation has been said to require formulation in terms that are cognitively significant. It examines the connection in detail, with reference to the Carl Gustav Hempel and Paul Oppenheim study. Empirically significant accounts, in particular, fall in the province of empirical science, for they are not only in fact true or false, but their truth or falsehood is not decidable by reference to their forms or meanings alone; observation is required in addition. Such accounts seem clearly defective despite their inclusion of general principles, and their ability to yield the desired explanandum as a consequence. They cannot be accepted, even though there are respectable explanations for example in terms of the behavior of imperceptible particles which also seem like gibberish to the layman and equally removed from direct observation.
