6 found
Sort by:
  1. Dingmar van Eck (forthcoming). Reconciling Ontic and Epistemic Constraints on Mechanistic Explanation, Epistemically. Axiomathes:1-18.
    In this paper I address the current debate on ontic versus epistemic conceptualizations of mechanistic explanation in the mechanisms literature. Illari recently argued that good explanations are subject to both ontic and epistemic constraints: they must describe mechanisms in the world (ontic aim) in such fashion that they provide understanding of their workings (epistemic aim). Elaborating upon Illari’s ‘integration’ account, I argue that causal role function discovery of mechanisms and their components is an epistemic prerequisite for achieving these two aims. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Dingmar van Eck (forthcoming). Validating Function-Based Design Methods: An Explanationist Perspective. Philosophy and Technology:1-21.
    Analysis of the adequacy of engineering design methods, as well as analysis of the utility of concepts of function often invoked in these methods, is a neglected topic in both philosophy of technology and in engineering proper. In this paper, I present an approach—dubbed an explanationist perspective—for assessing the adequacy of function-based design methods. Engineering design is often intertwined with explanation, for instance, in reverse engineering and subsequent redesign, knowledge base-assisted designing, and diagnostic reasoning. I argue that the presented approach (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Dingmar van Eck & Erik Weber (forthcoming). Function Ascription and Explanation: Elaborating an Explanatory Utility Desideratum for Ascriptions of Technical Functions. Erkenntnis:1-23.
    Current philosophical theorizing about technical functions is mainly focused on specifying conditions under which agents are justified in ascribing functions to technical artifacts. Yet, assessing the precise explanatory relevance of such function ascriptions is, by and large, a neglected topic in the philosophy of technical artifacts and technical functions. We assess the explanatory utility of ascriptions of technical functions in the following three explanation-seeking contexts: (i) why was artifact x produced?, (ii) why does artifact x not have the expected capacity (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Dingmar van Eck (2011). Incommensurability and Rationality in Engineering Design. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 15 (2):118-136.
    In engineering design research different models of functional decomposition are advanced side-by-side. In this paper I explain and validate this co-existence of models in terms of the Kuhnian thesis of methodological incommensurability. I advance this analysis in terms of the thesis’ construal of (non-algorithmic) theory choice in terms of values, expanding this notion to the engineering domain. I further argue that the (by some) implicated threat of the thesis to rational theory choice has no force in the functional decomposition case: (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Dingmar Van Eck, Huib Looren De Jong & Maurice K. D. Schouten (2006). Evaluating New Wave Reductionism: The Case of Vision. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):167-196.
    Faculty Of Philosophy, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands m.k.d.schouten{at}uvt.nl' + u + '@' + d + ''//--> This paper inquires into the nature of intertheoretic relations between psychology and neuroscience. This relationship has been characterized by some as one in which psychological explanations eventually will fall away as otiose, overthrown completely by neurobiological ones. Against this view it will be argued that it squares poorly with scientific practices and empirical developments in the cognitive neurosciences. We (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Joshua Knobe, Dingmar Van Eck, Susan Blackmore, Henk Bij De Weg, John Barresi, Roblin Meeks, Julian Kiverstein & Drew Rendall (2005). Reviews. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 18 (6):785 – 817.