Advertisement

Types of Mechanisms: Ephemeral, Regular, Functional

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

Abstract

The Acting Entity-characterization of mechanisms, defended in the last chapter, is rather broad. It allows for almost all causal goings-on to be mechanisms. Let us call the AE-characterization of mechanisms as formulated in the previous chapter the minimal notion of a mechanism (Glennan 2017). In the following sections I introduce a taxonomy of mechanisms that goes beyond the minimal notion. First, I introduce the notion of a functional mechanism: one can distinguish between those mechanisms that fulfill a (biological) function, and those that do not (Garson 2013; Piccinini 2015; Maley and Piccinini 2017). Indeed, combining the notion of a mechanism with that of a function seems to be promising with regard to making sense of the normativity of mechanism-talk: a mechanism that has a certain function is supposed to fulfill that function and might fail to fulfill it. In what follows, I discuss different suggestions for how to characterize functional mechanisms. It will turn out that neither of these notions successfully accounts for the normativity of mechanism-talk unless the second and third sub-types of mechanisms are taken into account. I will call the second type regular mechanism; the third type I will call reversely regular mechanism (Krickel 2018). Both notions rest on the idea that one can distinguish between one-off mechanisms and mechanisms that establish some kind of regularity (Andersen 2012). Regular mechanisms, as I will show, have to be understood as mechanisms that bring about a particular phenomenon more often than they bring about any other phenomenon. Reversely regular mechanisms are mechanisms that bring about a particular phenomenon that is more often brought about by that mechanism than by any other mechanism. I will show how these two notions of regularity together are necessary and sufficient for grounding type-level mechanistic explanations (see also Krickel 2018), and when combined with the functional notion of a mechanism, can solve the problem of accidental goal contributions, which afflicts the most promising account of functions as discussed in the next section.

References

  1. Allen, C. (2009). Teleological notions in biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 200. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, H. K. (2012). The case for regularity in mechanistic causal explanation. Synthese, 189, 415–432.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9965-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros, D. B. (2008). Natural selection as a mechanism*. Philosophy of Science, 75, 306–322.  https://doi.org/10.1086/593075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bissell, M. J., & Hines, W. C. (2011). Why don’t we get more cancer? A proposed role of the microenvironment in restraining cancer progression. Nature Medicine, 17, 320–329.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2328. Nature Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogen, J. (2004). Analysing causality: The opposite of counterfactual is factual. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18, 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590412331289233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogen, J. (2005). Regularities and causality; generalizations and causal explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 397–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branco, T., & Staras, K. (2009). The probability of neurotransmitter release: Variability and feedback control at single synapses. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 10, 373–383.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bromberger, S. (1966). Why questions. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and cosmos (pp. 86–111). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53–74.  https://doi.org/10.1086/392866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9097-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C. F. (2013). In P. Huneman (Ed.), Functions: Selection and mechanisms. Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5304-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Crook, S., & Gillett, C. (2001). Why physics alone cannot define the “physical”: Materialism, metaphysics, and the formulation of physicalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 31, 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummins, R. (2002). Neo-teleology. In A. Ariew, R. E. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Darden, L. (2008). Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 75, 958–969.  https://doi.org/10.1086/594538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dauer, W., & Przedborski, S. (2003). Parkinson’s disease: Mechanisms and models. Neuron, 39, 889–909.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00568-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DesAutels, L. (2011). Against regular and irregular characterizations of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 78, 914–925.  https://doi.org/10.1086/662558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science, 76, 444–463.  https://doi.org/10.1086/648111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fauci, A. S. (1988). The human immunodeficiency virus: Infectivity and mechanisms of pathogenesis. Science, 239, 617–623. American Association for the Advancement of Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garson, J. (2013). The functional sense of mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 80, 317–333.  https://doi.org/10.1086/671173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilman, S. L. (2008). Constructing Schizophrenia as a category of mental illness. In E. R. Wallace & J. Gach (Eds.), History of psychiatry and medical psychology: With an epilogue on psychiatry and the mind-body relation (pp. 461–483). Boston: Springer US.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34708-0_15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glennan, S. (2002). Contextual unanimity and the units of selection problem. Philosophy of Science, 69, 118–137. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Glennan, S. (2010). Ephemeral mechanisms and historical explanation. Erkenntnis, 72, 251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9203-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glennan, S. (2017). The new mechanical philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grundmann, E. (2000). Einführung in die allgemeine Pathologie. München: Urban und Fischer.Google Scholar
  31. Hempel, C. G. (1980). Comments on Goodman’s ways of worldmaking. Synthese, 45, 193–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Judisch, N. (2008). Why “non-mental” won’t work: On Hempel’s dilemma and the characterization of the “physical”. Philosophical Studies, 140, 299–318.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9142-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Kirson, E. D., Gurvich, Z., Schneiderman, R., Dekel, E., Itzhaki, A., Wasserman, Y., Schatzberger, R., & Palti, Y. (2004). Disruption of cancer cell replication by alternating electric fields. Cancer Research, 64, 3288 LP–3295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krickel, B. (2018). A regularist approach to mechanistic type-level explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69, 1123–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx011.
  36. Leung, L. W., Martinez, O., Reynard, O., Volchkov, V. E., & Basler, C. F. (2011). Ebola virus failure to stimulate plasmacytoid dendritic cell interferon responses correlates with impaired cellular entry. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 204, S973.  https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jir331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maley, C. J., & Piccinini, G. (2017). A unified mechanistic account of teleological functions for psychology and neuroscience. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Explanation and integration in mind and brain science (pp. 236–256). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mazurczyk, M., & Rybaczek, D. (2015). Replication and re-replication: Different implications of the same mechanism. Biochimie, 108, 25–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2014.10.026. Elsevier Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meng, X., Zhong, J., Liu, S., Murray, M., & Gonzalez-Angulo, A. M. (2012). A new hypothesis for the cancer mechanism. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, 31, 247–268.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-011-9342-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Messing, S. A. J., Gabelli, S. B., Liu, Q., Celesnik, H., Belasco, J. G., Piñeiro, S. A., & Mario Amzel, L. (2009). Structure and biological function of the RNA pyrophosphohydrolase BdRppH from Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. Structure, 17, 472–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2008.12.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Millikan, R. G. (1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science, 56, 288–302. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montero, B., & Papineau, D. (2005). A defense of the via negativa argument for physicalism. Analysis, 65, 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreno, A., & Mossio, M. (2015). Biological autonomy. A philosophical and theoretical enquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Neander, K. (1991). The teleological notion of “function”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 69, 454–468.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409112344881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology: Or, evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. London: R. Faulder.Google Scholar
  48. Pettit, P. (1993). A definition of physicalism. Analysis, 53, 213.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3328239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Petty, T. L. (2005). Are COPD and lung cancer two manifestations of the same disease? Chest, 128, 1895–1897.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.4.1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piccinini, G. (2015). Physical computation: A mechanistic account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Plutynski, A. (2018). Explaining cancer: Finding order in disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scriven, M. (1959). Explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory. Science, 130, 477 LP–477482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigurbjörnsdóttir, S., Mathew, R., & Leptin, M. (2014). Molecular mechanisms of de novo lumen formation. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 15, 665–676.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tucci, D. L. (2007). Dizziness and vertigo. In On call neurology (pp. 166–174). Philadelphia: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-2375-3.50020-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations