Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T00:11:22.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Causes without Mechanisms: Experimental Regularities, Physical Laws, and Neuroscientific Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

This article examines the role of experimental generalizations and physical laws in neuroscientific explanations, using Hodgkin and Huxley's electrophysiological model from 1952 as a test case. I show that the fact that the model was partly fitted to experimental data did not affect its explanatory status, nor did the false mechanistic assumptions made by Hodgkin and Huxley. The model satisfies two important criteria of explanatory status: it contains invariant generalizations and it is modular (both in James Woodward's sense). Further, I argue that there is a sense in which the explanatory heteronomy thesis holds true for this case.

Type
Where Neuroscience Meets Physics: Laws, Explanation, and the Hodgkin-Huxley Model of the Action Potential
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Special thanks to my PSA 2006 cosymposiasts Carl Craver, Jim Bogen, and Ken Schaffner for stimulating discussions and extensive correspondence, and to Daniel Sirtes for critically reading the manuscript.

References

Bernstein, Julius (1912), Elektrobiologie. Braunschweig: Vieweg.10.1007/978-3-663-01627-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, James (2005), “Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations”, Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations 36:397420.Google ScholarPubMed
Craver, Carl F. (2006), “When Mechanistic Models Explain”, When Mechanistic Models Explain 153:355376.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2007), Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2008), “Action Potentials and the Explanatory Heteronomy of Biology”, Action Potentials and the Explanatory Heteronomy of Biology 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, Alan L., and Huxley, Andrew F. (1952), “A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve”, A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve 117:500544.Google ScholarPubMed
Hodgkin, Alan L., and Katz, Bernard (1949), “The Effect of Sodium Ions on the Electrical Activity of the Giant Axon of the Squid”, The Effect of Sodium Ions on the Electrical Activity of the Giant Axon of the Squid 108:3777.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuffler, Stephen W., Nicholls, John G., and Martin, A. Robert (1984), From Neuron to Brain: A Cellular Approach to the Function of the Nervous System. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000), “Thinking about Mechanisms”, Thinking about Mechanisms 67:125.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (2008), “Theories, Models and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology”, Theories, Models and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (2007), “Causes That Make a Difference”, Causes That Make a Difference 104:551579.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel (2005), Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Nitecki, Matthew H. and Hoffman, Antoni (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2355.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2003), Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar