Skip to main content
Log in

Interpretability and Unification

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a recent reply to our article, “What is Interpretability?,” Prasetya argues against our position that artificial neural networks are explainable. It is claimed that our indefeasibility thesis—that adding complexity to an explanation of a phenomenon does not make the phenomenon any less explainable—is false. More precisely, Prasetya argues that unificationist explanations are defeasible to increasing complexity, and thus, we may not be able to provide such explanations of highly complex AI models. The reply highlights an important lacuna in our original paper, the omission of the unificationist account of explanation, and affords us the opportunity to respond. Here, we argue that artificial neural networks are explainable in a way that should satisfy unificationists and that interpretability methods present ways in which ML theories can achieve unification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, 770–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon, Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). University of Minnesota Press.

  • Prasetya, Y. (2022). ANNs and unifying explanations: Reply to Erasmus, Brunet, and Fisher. Philosophy & Technology (in press).

Download references

Funding

Author AE declares no funds, grants, or other support that were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author TDPB has received support from the Leverhulme Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AE and TDPB cowrote and approved the first draft of this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Erasmus.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erasmus, A., Brunet, T.D.P. Interpretability and Unification. Philos. Technol. 35, 42 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00537-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00537-z

Keyword

Navigation