Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models

Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):139-152 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

When Mechanistic Models Explain.Carl F. Craver - 2006 - Synthese 153 (3):355-376.
Completeness and Incompleteness for Plausibility Logic.Karl Schlechta - 1996 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5 (2):177-192.
Function and Mechanism: The Metaphysics of Neuroeconomics.Michiru Nagatsu - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):197-205.
How Scientific Models Can Explain.Alisa Bokulich - 2011 - Synthese 180 (1):33 - 45.
Rich Models.Michael H. Albert & Rami P. Grossberg - 1990 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (3):1292-1298.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-02-01

Downloads
46 (#251,780)

6 months
1 (#415,205)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Mechanistic Explanation in Engineering Science.Dingmar van Eck - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3):349-375.
Inferential Explanations in Biology.Raoul Gervais & Erik Weber - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):356-364.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking About Mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):421-441.
Special Sciences.Jerry A. Fodor - 1974 - Synthese 28 (2):97-115.

View all 18 references / Add more references