Advertisement

“Looking Up” and “Looking Down”: On the Dual Character of Mechanistic Explanations

Article

Abstract

Mechanistic explanation is at present the received view of scientific explanation. One of its central features is the idea that mechanistic explanations are both “downward looking” and “upward looking”: they explain by offering information about the internal constitution of the mechanism as well as the larger environment in which the mechanism is situated. That is, they offer both constitutive and contextual explanatory information. Adequate mechanistic explanations, on this view, accommodate the full range of explanatory factors both “above” and “below” the target phenomenon. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that mechanistic explanation cannot furnish both constitutive and contextual information simultaneously, because these are different types of explanation with distinctly different aims. Claims that they can, I argue, depend on several intertwined confusions concerning the nature of explanation. Particularly, such claims tend to conflate mechanistic and functional explanation, which I argue ought to be understood as distinct. Conflating them threatens to oversell the explanatory power of mechanisms and obscures the means by which they explain. I offer two broad reasons in favor of distinguishing mechanistic and functional explanation: the first concerns the direction of explanation of each, and the second concerns the type of questions to which these explanations offer answers. I suggest an alternative picture on which mechanistic explanation is understood as fundamentally constitutive, and according to which an adequate understanding of a phenomenon typically requires supplementing the mechanistic explanation with a functional explanation.

Keywords

Explanation Mechanistic explanation Functional explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Colin Allen and Carlos Zednik for many years of discussion about mechanisms, and to Antony Aumann, Zac Cogley, and Kristopher Phillips for reading and providing helpful commentary on an early draft of this paper.

References

  1. Bechtel, W. (2006). Discovering cell mechanisms: The creation of modern cell biology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (2009). Molecules, systems, and behavior: Another view of memory consolidation. In J. Bickle (Ed.), Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. (1993/2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bickle, J. (1998). Psychoneural reduction: The new wave. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bickle, J. (2003). Philosophy of neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickle, J. (2006). Reducing mind to molecular pathways: Explicating the reductionism implicit in current cellular and molecular neuroscience. Synthese, 151, 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bromberger, S. (1966). Why questions. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and cosmos. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carnap, R. (1932). Psychology in physical language. Erkenntnis, 3, 107–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Craver, C. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. (2005). Beyond reduction: Mechanisms, multifield integration, and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craver, C. (2007a). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craver, C. (2007b). Constitutive explanatory relevance. Journal of Philosophical Research, 3, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craver, C., & Darden, L. (2001). Discovering mechanisms in neurobiology: The case of spatial memory. In P. K. Machamer, R. Grush, & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), Theory and method in the neurosciences. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Craver, C., & Piccinini, G. (2011). Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches. Synthese, 183, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummins, R. (1985). The nature of psychological explanation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dray, W. (1957). Laws and explanation in history. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eronen, M. (2013). No levels, no problems: Downward causation in neuroscience. Philosophy of Science, 80, 1042–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fazekas, P., & Kertész, G. (2011). Causation at different levels: Tracking the commitments of mechanistic explanations. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(Suppl.), S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hooker, C. (1981). Towards a general theory of reduction. Part I: Historical and scientific setting. Part II: Identity in reduction. Part III: Cross-categorial reduction. Dialogue, 20, 38–59, 201–236, 496–529.Google Scholar
  27. Jaworski, W. (2009). The logic of how-questions. Synthese, 166, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamb, M., & Chemero, A. (2014). Structure and application of dynamical models in cognitive science. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36(36), 809–814.Google Scholar
  29. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 2, pp. 3–36).Google Scholar
  32. Piccinini, G., & Craver, C. (2011). Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches. Synthese, 183(3), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffner, K. (1967). Approaches to reduction. Philosophy of Science, 36, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaffner, K. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Soom, P. (2012). Mechanisms, determination and the metaphysics of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  38. Theurer, K. (2012). Rethinking reductionism: From 17th century mechanism to contemporary molecular neuroscience. (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  39. Theurer, K. (2013a). Compositional explanatory relations and mechanistic reduction. Minds and Machines, 23(3), 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Theurer, K. (2013b). Seventeenth-century mechanism: An alternative framework for reductionism. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Theurer, K., & Bickle, J. (2013). What’s old is new again: Kemeny–Oppenheim reduction in current molecular neuroscience. Philosophia Scientiae, 17(2), 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wimsatt, W. (1972). Teleology and the logical structure of function statements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 3, 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wimsatt, W. (1974). Reductive explanation: A functional account. In Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 671–710).Google Scholar
  44. Woodward, J. (2002). What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science, 69(Suppl.), S366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wright, L. (1976). Teleological explanations. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zednik, C. (2011). The nature of dynamical explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78(2), 238–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity CollegeHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations