Minds and Machines 32 (1):159-183 (2022)

Sanja Sreckovic
University of Belgrade
Andrea Berber
University of Belgrade
Nenad Filipovic
University of Belgrade
Certain characteristics make machine learning a powerful tool for processing large amounts of data, and also particularly unsuitable for explanatory purposes. There are worries that its increasing use in science may sideline the explanatory goals of research. We analyze the key characteristics of ML that might have implications for the future directions in scientific research: epistemic opacity and the ‘theory-agnostic’ modeling. These characteristics are further analyzed in a comparison of ML with the traditional statistical methods, in order to demonstrate what it is specifically that makes ML methodology substantially unsuitable for reaching explanations. The analysis is given broader philosophical context by connecting it with the views on the role of prediction and explanation in science, their relationship, and the value of explanation. We proceed to show, first, that ML disrupts the relationship between prediction and explanation commonly understood as a functional relationship. Then we show that the value of explanation is not exhausted in purely predictive functions, but rather has a ubiquitously recognized value for both science and everyday life. We then invoke two hypothetical scenarios with different degrees of automatization of science, which help test our intuitions on the role of explanation in science. The main question we address is whether ML will reorient or otherwise impact our standard explanatory practice. We conclude with a prognosis that ML would diversify science into purely predictively oriented research based on ML-like techniques and, on the other hand, remaining faithful to anthropocentric research focused on the search for explanation.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11023-021-09575-6
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,979
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Web of Belief.W. V. O. Quine & J. S. Ullian - 1970 - New York: Random House.
Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Carl Gustav Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.

View all 55 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Holism and Emergence: Dynamical Complexity Defeats Laplace’s Demon.John Collier - 2011 - South African Journal of Philosophy 30 (2):229-243.
Laplaceanism Defended.Peter Gildenhuys - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (3):395-408.
Reintroducing Prediction to Explanation.Heather E. Douglas - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (4):444-463.
Chaos, Prediction and Laplacean Determinism.M. A. Stone - 1989 - American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (2):123--31.
The New Evil Demon and the Devil in the Details.Mikkel Gerken - 2018 - In Veli Mitova (ed.), The Factive Turn in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 102-122.
Explanation in Physics: Explanation.Michael Redhead - 1990 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 27:135-154.
How to Entrain Your Evil Demon.Jakob Hohwy - 2017 - Philosophy and Predictive Processing.
Explanation in Physics: Explanation*: Michael Redhead.Michael Redhead - 1990 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 27:135-154.
The Instrumental Value of Explanations.Tania Lombrozo - 2011 - Philosophy Compass 6 (8):539-551.


Added to PP index

Total views
16 ( #665,212 of 2,504,848 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #91,044 of 2,504,848 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes