David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hodgkin and Huxley’s 1952 model of the action potential is an apparent dream case of covering-law explanation. The model appeals to general laws of physics and chemistry (specifically, Ohm’s law and the Nernst equation), and the laws, coupled with details about antecedent and background conditions, entail many of the significant properties of the action potential. However, Hodgkin and Huxley insist that their model falls short of an explanation. This historical fact suggests either that there is more to explaining the action potential than subsuming it under a general laws or that Hodgkin and Huxley were wrong about the explanatory import of their model. In this paper, I defend Hodgkin and Huxley’s view that their model alone does not explain the action potential (contra Weber 2005). I argue further that neuroscientists lacked crucial explanatory details about the action potential until they could describe the molecular and ionic mechanisms by virtue of which their model holds (see Bogen 2005). Mathematical generalizations are important epistemic tools for assessing mechanistic explanations, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for adequate explanations, even at the lowest levels of organization where biological phenomena are integrated with physics and chemistry.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth F. Schaffner (2008). Theories, Models, and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):1008-1021.
Robrecht Vanderbeeken (2004). Models of Intentional Explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7 (3):233 – 246.
W. M. Goodwin (2008). Structural Formulas and Explanation in Organic Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):117-127.
Ulrich Müller & Stephan Pilatus (1982). On Hodgkin and Huxley's Theory of Excitable Membranes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 3 (2):193-208.
Ulrich M.�Ller & Stephan Pilatus (1982). On Hodgkin and Huxley's Theory of Excitable Membranes. Metamedicine 3 (2):193-208.
Carl F. Craver (2009). Explaining the Brain. OUP Oxford.
Marcel Weber (2008). Causes Without Mechanisms: Experimental Regularities, Physical Laws, and Neuroscientific Explanation. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):995-1007.
Jim Bogen (2008). The Hodgkin‐Huxley Equations and the Concrete Model: Comments on Craver, Schaffner, and Weber. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):1034-1046.
Carl F. Craver (2006). When Mechanistic Models Explain. Synthese 153 (3):355-376.
Carl F. Craver (2008). Physical Law and Mechanistic Explanation in the Hodgkin and Huxley Model of the Action Potential. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):1022-1033.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads288 ( #7,364 of 1,796,210 )
Recent downloads (6 months)65 ( #8,938 of 1,796,210 )
How can I increase my downloads?