Advertisement

Theories of Mechanism

  • Beate Krickel
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 13)

Abstract

The contemporary philosophical literature contains different views on what mechanisms are. All approaches agree on certain central assumptions; but they differ in various respects, some of which are crucial when it comes to analyzing the metaphysical commitments of the new mechanistic approach. Roughly, the different approaches to mechanisms can be divided into three categories. First, there are Early Approaches to mechanisms and mechanistic explanation, which differ crucially from the new debate in terms of terminology, concepts, and metaphysical implications, despite having also motivated the new mechanistic thinking (see, for example, Glennan 2002 and Campaner 2013 for a comparison). Wesley Salmon (1984a), Phil Dowe (1999), and Peter Railton (1978) are the main figures here. The second category I label Complex System Approaches to mechanisms. Its main defenders are Stuart Glennan (1996, 2002, 2010b), Nancy Cartwright (1999), William Bechtel and Robert C. Richardson (1993), and Bechtel and Adele Abrahamsen (2005). The central assumption of these approaches is that a mechanism is some kind of a physical object or structure, as exemplified by everyday entities such as hearts, cells, clocks, and toilets. The third category I call Acting Entities Approaches to mechanisms. According to these approaches, mechanisms are not objects but process-like in the sense that they consist of actual manifestations of activities by various entities that causally interact. Most prominently, Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl Craver (2000), and Craver (2007a) defend this version of the mechanistic approach. Phyllis M. Illari and Jon Williamson (2012) can also be identified as defenders of this view. In this chapter I present the three types of approaches, focusing on one exemplar of each category without dwelling on the details of the various different approaches that are grouped together. Indeed, the reader should keep in mind that the assignment of each approach to one of the categories is intended to simplify matters for our presentation, and thus glosses over important differences. My main goal is to highlight the metaphysical differences between the most prominent versions of the complex system approach and the acting entity approach, and evaluate their adequacy with regard to the overall goals of the new mechanistic approach.

References

  1. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms. Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (2009). Generalization and discovery by assuming conserved mechanisms: Cross species research on circadian oscillators. Philosophy of Science, 76, 762–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity. decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campaner, R. (2013). Mechanistic and Neo-mechanistic accounts of causation: How salmon already got (much of) it right. Meta, 3, 81–98.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world : A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, R.-L. (2017). Mechanisms, capacities, and nomological machines: Integrating cartwright’s account of nomological machines and machamer, Darden and Craver’s account of mechanisms. In Philosophy of science in practice (pp. 127–145). Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45532-7_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9097-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver, C. F. (2007a). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. F. (2007b). Constitutive explanatory relevance. Journal of Philosophical Research, 32, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr_2007_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. F. (2014). The ontic account of scientific explanation. In M. I. Kaiser, O. R. Scholz, D. Plenge, & A. Hüttemann (Eds.), Explanation in the special sciences: The case of biology and history (pp. 27–52). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7563-3_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9028-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C. F., & Tabery, J. (2016). Mechanisms in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 16. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries. Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darden, L. (2007). Mechanisms and model. In D. L. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to philosophy of biology (pp. 139–159). Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darden, L. (2008). Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 75, 958–969.  https://doi.org/10.1086/594538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowe, P. (1999). The conserved quantity theory of causation and chance raising. Philosophy of Science, 66, S486–S501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dupré, J. (2013). Living causes. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 87, 19–37.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2013.00218.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egan, F. (2017). Function-theoretic explanation and the search for neural mechanisms. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 145–163). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.  https://doi.org/10.1086/341857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 443–464.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glennan, S. (2010a). Ephemeral mechanisms and historical explanation. Erkenntnis, 72, 251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9203-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glennan, S. (2010b). Mechanisms, causes, and the layered model of the world. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81, 362–381.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00375.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Illari, P. M. K. (2013). Mechanistic explanation: Integrating the ontic and epistemic. Erkenntnis, 78, 237–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9511-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Illari, P. M. K., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0038-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kauffman, S. A. (1971). Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. In R. C. Buck & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), PSA 1970: In memory of Rudolf Carnap proceedings of the 1970 Biennial meeting philosophy of science association (pp. 257–272). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3142-4_18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nicholson, D. J. (2012). The concept of mechanism in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 152–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pemberton, J. (2011). Integrating mechanist and nomological machine ontologies to make sense of what-how-that evidence (pp. 1–17). http://Personal.Lse.Ac.Uk/Pemberto
  34. Railton, P. (1978). A deductive-nomological model of probabilistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 45, 206–226.  https://doi.org/10.1086/288797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salmon, W. C. (1984a). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Salmon, W. C. (1984b). Scientific explanation: Three basic conceptions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1984, 293–305.Google Scholar
  37. Salmon, W. C. (1994). Causality without counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 61, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheredos, B. (2015). Re-reconciling the epistemic and Ontic views of explanation (or, why the ontic view cannot support norms of generality). Erkenntnis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-015-9775-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sirtes, D. (2010). A pragmatic-ontic account of mechanistic explanation. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5181/
  40. Smith, B. (2012). Classifying processes: An essay in applied ontology. Ratio, 25, 463–488. Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williamson, J. (2013). How can causal explanations explain? Erkenntnis, 78, 257–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9512-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wimsatt, W. C. (1972). Complexity and organization. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1972, 67–86. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Woodward, J. (2000). Explanation and invariance in the special sciences. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 197–254.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright, C. D. (2012). Mechanistic explanation without the ontic conception. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 375–394.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0048-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright, C. D. (2015). The ontic conception of scientific explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 54, 20–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Krickel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IIRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations