Dimensions of explanation

Main Article Content

Eric Hochstein
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9741-4469

Abstract

Some argue that the term “explanation” in science is ambiguous, referring to at least three distinct concepts: a communicative concept, a representational concept, and an ontic concept. Each is defined in a different way with its own sets of norms and goals, and each of which can apply in contexts where the others do not. In this paper, I argue that such a view is false. Instead, I propose that a scientific explanation is a complex entity that can always be analyzed along a communicative dimension, a representational dimension, and an ontic dimension. But all three are always present within scientific explanations. I highlight what such an account looks like, and the potential problems it faces (namely that a single explanation can appear to have incompatible sets of norms and goals that govern it). I propose a solution to this problem and demonstrate how this account can help to dissolve current disputes in philosophy of science regarding debates between epistemic and ontic accounts of mechanistic explanations in the life sciences.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hochstein, E. (2024). Dimensions of explanation. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (74), 57–98. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.74.607
Section
Articles

References

Achinstein, P., 1984. The pragmatic character of explanation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association [Online], 1984(2), pp.274–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1984.2.192509.

Achinstein, P., 1983. The Nature of Explanation [Online]. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: <http://archive.org/details/natureofexplanat0000achi> [visited on 29 September 2023].

Austin, C.J., 2017. The philosophy of biology. Analysis [Online], 77(2), pp.412–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx032.

Batterman, R.W., 2000. Multiple realizability and universality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [Online], 51(1), pp.115–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.115.

Batterman, R.W., 2002. The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence, Oxford studies in philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Batterman, R.W. and Rice, C.C., 2014. Minimal model explanations. Philosophy of Science [Online], 81(3), pp.349–376. https://doi.org/10.1086/676677.

Bechtel, W., 2008. Mental Mechanisms: Philosophical Perspectives on Cognitive Neuroscience. New York: Routledge.

Bechtel, W., 2015. Can mechanistic explanation be reconciled with scale-free constitution and dynamics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online], 53, pp.84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.03.006.

Bogen, J., 2005. Regularities and causality; generalizations and causal explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online], 36(2), pp.397–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.009.

Bokulich, A., 2018. Representing and explaining: The eikonic conception of scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science [Online], 85(5), pp.793–805. https://doi.org/10.1086/699693.

Braverman, M. et al., 2012. Intelligibility is necessary for scientific explanation, but accuracy may not be. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society [Online], 34(34), pp.1368–1373. Available at: <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32m3q2sp> [visited on 29 September 2023].

Chirimuuta, M., 2014. Minimal models and canonical neural computations: the distinctness of computational explanation in neuroscience. Synthese [Online], 191(2), pp.127–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0369-y.

Coffa, J.A., 1974. Hempel’s ambiguity. Synthese [Online], 28(2), pp.141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485232.

Craver, C.F., 2006. When mechanistic models explain. Synthese [Online], 153(3), pp.355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9097-x.

Craver, C.F., 2014. The Ontic Account of Scientific Explanation. In: M.I. Kaiser, O.R. Scholz, D. Plenge and A. Hüttemann, eds. Explanation in the Special Sciences: The Case of Biology and History [Online]. Vol. 367, Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp.27–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7563-3_2.

Craver, C.F. and Darden, L., 2013. In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the Life Sciences [Online]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Available at: <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo16123713.html> [visited on 29 September 2023].

Craver, C.F. and Kaplan, D.M., 2020. Are more details better? On the norms of completeness for mechanistic explanations. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [Online], 71(1), pp.287–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy015.

Craver, C.F. and Povich, M., 2017. The directionality of distinctively mathematical explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [Online], 63, pp.31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.04.005.

Douglas, H.E., 2009. Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science [Online], 76(4), pp.444–463. https://doi.org/10.1086/648111.

Eichner, A.S., ed., 1983. Why Economics is Not Yet a Science. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.

Elgin, C.Z., 2004. True enough. Philosophical Issues [Online], 14(1), pp.113–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2004.00023.x.

Friedman, M., 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gilpin, L.H. et al., 2022. "Explanation" is Not a Technical Term: The Problem of Ambiguity in XAI [Online]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.00007.

Hall, C. et al., 2001. The need to reintegrate the natural sciences with economics: Neoclassical economics, the dominant form of economics today, has at least three fundamental flaws from the perspective of the natural sciences, but it is possible to develop a different, biophysical basis for economics that can serve as a supplement to, or a replacement for, neoclassical economics. BioScience [Online], 51(8), pp.663–673. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-

(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2.

Hausman, D.M., 2008. Why look under the hood? The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.183–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819025.012.

Heeger, D.J., 1992. Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience [Online], 9(2), pp.181–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523800009640.

Hochstein, E., 2017. Why one model is never enough: a defense of explanatory holism. Biology & Philosophy [Online], 32(6), pp.1105–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-017-9595-x.

Hochstein, E., 2019. How metaphysical commitments shape the study of psychological mechanisms. Theory & Psychology [Online], 29(5), pp.579–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319860591.

Hodgkin, A.L. and Huxley, A.F., 1952. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of Physiology [Online], 117(4), pp.500–544. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764.

Illari, P., 2013. Mechanistic explanation: Integrating the ontic and epistemic. Erkenntnis [Online], 78(S2), pp.237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9511-y.

Izadi, S., Anandakrishnan, R. and Onufriev, A.V., 2014. Building water models: A different approach. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters [Online], 5(21), pp.3863–3871. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz501780a.

Kaplan, D.M., 2011. Explanation and description in computational neuroscience. Synthese [Online], 183(3), pp.339–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9970-0.

Keen, S., 2022. The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change. In: B.K. Gills and J. Morgan, eds. Economics and Climate Emergency, Rethinking globalizations. London; New York: Routledge, pp.79–107.

Lipton, P., 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd ed., International library of philosophy. London; New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Lombrozo, T., 2016. Explanatory preferences shape learning and inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences [Online], 20(10), pp.748–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.001.

Machamer, P., Darden, L. and Craver, C.F., 2000. Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science [Online], 67(1), pp.1–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/392759.

Mackonis, A., 2013. Inference to the best explanation, coherence and other explanatory virtues. Synthese [Online], 190(6), pp.975–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0054-y.

Mantzavinos, C., 2016. Explanatory Pluralism [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316440599.

Parker, G., 1978. Searching for Mates. In: J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, eds. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, pp.214–244.

Plutynski, A., 2013. Cancer and the goals of integration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online], 44(4), pp.466–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.019.

Potochnik, A., 2010. Explanatory independence and epistemic interdependence: A case study of the optimality approach. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [Online], 61(1), pp.213–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axp022.

Potochnik, A., 2015. The diverse aims of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [Online]. Special Section: Formal Epistemology and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism, 53, pp.71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.008.

Povich, M., 2018. Minimal models and the generalized ontic conception of scientific explanation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [Online], 69(1), pp.117–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axw019.

Povich, M. and Craver, C.F., 2018. Because without cause: Non-causal explanations in science and mathematics (review). Philosophical Review [Online], 127(3), pp.422–426. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-6718870.

Rice, C., 2015. Moving beyond causes: Optimality models and scientific explanation. Noűs [Online], 49(3), pp.589–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12042.

Rice, C. and Rohwer, Y., 2020. How to reconcile a unified account of explanation with explanatory diversity. Foundations of Science [Online], 26(4), pp.1025–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09647-y.

Ruben, D.-H., 1990. Explaining Explanation. 1st ed., The problems of philosophy: their past and present. New York: Routledge.

Salmon, W.C., 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation. In: P. Kitcher and W.C. Salmon, eds. Scientific Explanation [Online], Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.3–219. Available at: <http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/185700> [visited on 4 October 2023].

Strevens, M., 2011. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waskan, J., 2011. Intelligibility and the CAPE: Combatting Anti-Psychologism about Explanation [Online]. Available at: <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8530/> [visited on 4 October 2023].

Waskan, J., Harmon, I., Higgins, A. and Spino, J., 2014. Three senses of ‘Explanation’. In: P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane and B. Scassellati, eds. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp.3090–3095.

Woods, J. and Rosales, A., 2010. Virtuous Distortion. In: L. Magnani, W. Carnielli and C. Pizzi, eds. Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery [Online], Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.3–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_1.

Woody, A.I., 2015. Re-orienting discussions of scientific explanation: A functional perspective. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [Online], 52, pp.79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.03.005.

Wright, C., 2015. The ontic conception of scientific explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [Online], 54, pp.20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.06.001.

Wright, C. and van Eck, D., 2018. Reconciling ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation, epistemically. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy [Online], 5(38). https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0005.038