What was Hodgkin and Huxley's Achievement?

The Hodgkin–Huxley (HH) model of the action potential is a theoretical pillar of modern neurobiology. In a number of recent publications, Carl Craver ([2006], [2007], [2008]) has argued that the model is explanatorily deficient because it does not reveal enough about underlying molecular mechanisms. I offer an alternative picture of the HH model, according to which it deliberately abstracts from molecular specifics. By doing so, the model explains whole-cell behaviour as the product of a mass of underlying low-level events. The issue goes beyond cellular neurobiology, for the strategy of abstraction exhibited in the HH case is found in a range of biological contexts. I discuss why it has been largely neglected by advocates of the mechanist approach to explanation. 1 Introduction2 A Primer on the HH Model2.1 The basic qualitative picture2.2 The quantitative model3 Interlude: What Did Hodgkin and Huxley Think?4 Craver’s View4.1 Mechanistic explanation4.2 Sketches4.3 Craver's view: The HH model as a mechanism sketch5 An Alternative View of the HH Model5.1 Another look at the equations5.2 The discrete-gating picture5.3 The road paved by Hodgkin and Huxley5.4 Summary and comparison to Craver6 Conclusion: The HH Model and Mechanistic Explanation6.1 Sketches and abstractions6.2 Why has aggregative abstraction been overlooked?
Keywords Explanation in Neuroscience  Action potentials  Abstraction  Mechanisms
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2014
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axs043
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Systems Biology and the Integration of Mechanistic Explanation and Mathematical Explanation.Ingo Brigandt - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):477-492.
Explanation in Computational Neuroscience: Causal and Non-Causal.M. Chirimuuta - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Modelling as Indirect Representation? The Lotka–Volterra Model Revisited.Tarja Knuuttila & Andrea Loettgers - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv055.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Explaining the Brain.F. Craver Carl - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
When Mechanistic Models Explain.Carl F. Craver - 2006 - Synthese 153 (3):355-376.
On Hodgkin and Huxley's Theory of Excitable Membranes.Ulrich Müller & Stephan Pilatus - 1982 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 3 (2):193-208.
Mechanisms Are Real and Local.Phyllis McKay Illari & Jon Williamson - 2011 - In Phyllis McKay Illari, Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

601 ( #2,353 of 2,178,189 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #39,557 of 2,178,189 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums