Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T19:15:49.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Idealization of Causation in Mechanistic Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Causal relations among components and activities are intentionally misrepresented in mechanistic explanations found routinely across the life sciences. Since several mechanists explicitly advocate accurately representing factors that make a difference to the outcome, these idealizations conflict with the stated rationale for mechanistic explanation. We argue that these idealizations signal an overlooked feature of reasoning in molecular and cell biology—mechanistic explanations do not occur in isolation—and suggest that explanatory practices within the mechanistic tradition share commonalities with model-based approaches prevalent in population biology.

Type
Explanation and Mechanisms
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

Both authors contributed equally to this work. Earlier versions were presented at the 2014 Philosophy of Biology at Madison workshop and the 2014 PSA Biennial Meeting in Chicago. We are grateful to both audiences and to an anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback.

References

Bechtel, William. 2011. “Mechanism and Biological Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 78:533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Abrahamsen, Adele. 2005. “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 36:421–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 2006. Reasoning in Biological Discoveries: Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2006. “The Strategy of Model-Based Science.” Biology and Philosophy 21:725–40.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter 2009. “Abstractions, Idealizations, and Evolutionary Biology.” In Mapping the Future of Biology: Evolving Concepts and Theories, ed. Barberousse, Anouk, Morange, Michel, and Pradeu, Thomas, 4755. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Michael, and Tijan, Robert. 2003. “Transcription Regulation and Animal Diversity.” Nature 424:147–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Arnon, and Bechtel, William. 2013. “Abstraction and the Organization of Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 80:241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Marco J. 2014. “Causation by Concentration.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65:191212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ptashne, Mark, and Gann, Alexander. 2002. Genes and Signals. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
Robins, Sarah K., and Craver, Carl F.. 2009. “Biological Clocks: Explaining with Models of Mechanisms.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience, ed. Bickle, John, 4167. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silberstein, Michael, and Chemero, Anthony. 2013. “Constraints on Localization and Decomposition as Explanatory Strategies in the Biological Sciences.” Philosophy of Science 80:958–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2008. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth. 2007. “Causes That Make a Difference.” Journal of Philosophy 104:551–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2013. “Mechanistic Explanation: Its Scope and Limits.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 87:3965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar