Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):139-152 (2013)
|Abstract||In this paper we argue that in recent literature on mechanistic explanations, authors tend to conflate two distinct features that mechanistic models can have or fail to have: plausibility and richness. By plausibility, we mean the probability that a model is correct in the assertions it makes regarding the parts and operations of the mechanism, i.e., that the model is correct as a description of the actual mechanism. By richness, we mean the amount of detail the model gives about the actual mechanism. First, we argue that there is at least a conceptual reason to keep these two features distinct, since they can vary independently from each other: models can be highly plausible while providing almost no details, while they can also be highly detailed but plainly wrong. Next, focusing on Craver's continuum of ?how-possibly,? to ?how-plausibly,? to ?how-actually? models, we argue that the conflation of plausibility and richness is harmful to the discussion because it leads to the view that both are necessary for a model to have explanatory power, while in fact, richness is only so with respect to a mechanism's activities, not its entities. This point is illustrated with two examples of functional models|
|Keywords||Explanation mechanism mechanistic explanation plausibility models richness|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Carl F. Craver (2006). When Mechanistic Models Explain. Synthese 153 (3):355-376.
John Matthewson & Brett Calcott (2011). Mechanistic Models of Population-Level Phenomena. Biology and Philosophy 26 (5):737-756.
David M. Kaplan & William Bechtel (2011). Dynamical Models: An Alternative or Complement to Mechanistic Explanations? Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):438-444.
Daniel A. Weiskopf (2011). Models and Mechanisms in Psychological Explanation. Synthese 183 (3):313-338.
Ron Sun (1999). Accounting for the Computational Basis of Consciousness: A Connectionist Approach. Consciousness and Cognition 8 (4):529-565.
Karl Schlechta (1996). Completeness and Incompleteness for Plausibility Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5 (2):177-192.
David Michael Kaplan (2011). Explanation and Description in Computational Neuroscience. Synthese 183 (3):339-373.
Martijn Meeter, Janneke Jehee & Jaap Murre (2007). Neural Models That Convince: Model Hierarchies and Other Strategies to Bridge the Gap Between Behavior and the Brain. Philosophical Psychology 20 (6):749 – 772.
Michiru Nagatsu (2010). Function and Mechanism: The Metaphysics of Neuroeconomics. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):197-205.
Alisa Bokulich (2011). How Scientific Models Can Explain. Synthese 180 (1):33 - 45.
William P. Bechtel (1998). Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicist Challenge in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science 22 (3):295-317.
Michael H. Albert & Rami P. Grossberg (1990). Rich Models. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (3):1292-1298.
Ingo Brigandt (forthcoming). Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation. In P.-A. Braillard and C. Malaterre (ed.), Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Springer.
Peter Fazekas & Gergely Kertész (2011). Causation at Different Levels: Tracking the Commitments of Mechanistic Explanations. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):365-383.
Added to index2012-02-01
Total downloads15 ( #86,056 of 739,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?