Compare and Contrast: How to Assess the Completeness of Mechanistic Explanation

dc.contributor.authorKohár, Matej
dc.contributor.authorKrickel, Beate
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-25T16:17:38Z
dc.date.available2022-02-25T16:17:38Z
dc.date.issued2020-12-03
dc.description.abstractOpponents of the new mechanistic account of scientific explanation argue that the new mechanists are committed to a ‘More Details Are Better’ claim: adding details about the mechanism always improves an explanation. Due to this commitment, the mechanistic account cannot be descriptively adequate as actual scientific explanations usually leave out details about the mechanism. In reply to this objection, defenders of the new mechanistic account have highlighted that only adding relevant mechanistic details improves an explanation and that relevance is to be determined relative to the phenomenon-to-be-explained. Craver and Kaplan (B J Philos Sci 71:287–319, 2020) provide a thorough reply along these lines specifying that the phenomena at issue are contrasts. In this paper, we will discuss Craver and Kaplan’s reply. We will argue that it needs to be modified in order to avoid three problems, i.e., what we will call the Odd Ontology Problem, the Multiplication of Mechanisms Problem, and the Ontic Completeness Problem. However, even this modification is confronted with two challenges: First, it remains unclear how explanatory relevance is to be determined for contrastive explananda within the mechanistic framework. Second, it remains to be shown as to how the new mechanistic account can avoid what we will call the ‘Vertical More Details are Better’ objection. We will provide answers to both challenges.en
dc.identifier.eissn2468-399X
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-030-54091-3
dc.identifier.isbn978-3-030-54092-0
dc.identifier.issn1573-4536
dc.identifier.urihttps://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/16481
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-15257
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subject.ddc100 Philosophie und Psychologiede
dc.subject.othermechanistic explanationen
dc.subject.othercompletenessen
dc.subject.otherontic vs. epistemic conceptionen
dc.subject.othermechanismsen
dc.subject.othermechanistische Erklärungde
dc.subject.otherVollständigkeitde
dc.subject.otherontische vs. epistemische Auffassungde
dc.subject.otherMechanismende
dc.titleCompare and Contrast: How to Assess the Completeness of Mechanistic Explanationen
dc.typeBook Parten
dc.type.versionacceptedVersionen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.booktitleNeural Mechanisms: New Challenges in the Philosophy of Neuroscienceen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi10.1007/978-3-030-54092-0_17en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.editorCalzavarini, Fabrizio
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.editorMarco, Viola
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishernameSpringeren
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublisherplaceChamen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend424en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart395en
tub.accessrights.dnbfreeen
tub.affiliationFak. 1 Geistes- und Bildungswissenschaften>Inst. Philosophie-, Literatur-, Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte>FG Philosophie der Kognitionde
tub.affiliation.facultyFak. 1 Geistes- und Bildungswissenschaftende
tub.affiliation.groupFG Philosophie der Kognitionde
tub.affiliation.instituteInst. Philosophie-, Literatur-, Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichtede
tub.publisher.universityorinstitutionTechnische Universität Berlinen
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading…
Thumbnail Image
Name:
kohar_krickel_2020.pdf
Size:
985.78 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections