Ontic or epistemic conception of explanation: A misleading distinction?

Main Article Content

Michał Oleksowicz

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss the differences between ontic and epistemic conceptions of scientific explanation, mainly in relation to the so-called new mechanical philosophy. I emphasize that the debate on conceptions of scientific explanation owes much to Salmon’s ontic/epistemic distinction, although much has changed since his formulations. I focus on the interplay between ontic and epistemic norms and constraints in providing mechanistic explanations. My conceptual analysis serves two aims. Firstly, I formulate some suggestions for recognising that both sets of norms and constraints, ontic and epistemic, are necessary for scientific theorising. Secondly, I emphasize that there are multiple dimensions involved in scientific explanation, rather than clear-cut alternatives between ontic and epistemic aspects. I conclude with a general observation that although contextual aspects of explanations are unavoidable, the epistemic-relativity of our categories, explanations and models can in fact be compatible with their objectivity. Instead of making hastily drawn ontological implications from our theories or models, we should carefully scrutinize them from the ontic-epistemic perspective.

Article Details

How to Cite
Oleksowicz, M. (2024). Ontic or epistemic conception of explanation: A misleading distinction?. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (74), 259–291. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.74.658
Section
Articles

References

Andersen, H., 2014a. A field guide to mechanisms: Part I. Philosophy Compass [Online], 9(4), pp.274–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12119.

Andersen, H., 2014b. A field guide to mechanisms: Part II. Philosophy Compass [Online], 9(4), pp.284–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12118.

Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A., 2005. Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online], 36(2), pp.421–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010.

Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R.C., 2010. Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bickle, J., 2008. Real reduction in real neuroscience: metascience, not philosophy of science (and certainly not metaphysics!). In: J. Hohwy and J. Kallestrup, eds. Being Reduced: New Essays on Reduction, Explanation, and Causation [Online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.34–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso.

Bokulich, A., 2011. How scientific models can explain. Synthese [Online], 180(1), pp.33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9565-1.

Bokulich, A., 2016. Fiction as a vehicle for truth: Moving beyond the ontic conception. The Monist [Online], 99(3), pp.260–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onw004.

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.

Campaner, R., 2013. Mechanistic and Neo-mechanistic accounts of causation: how Salmon already got (much of) it right. Metatheoria, 3(2), pp.81–98.

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., 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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.

Darden, L., 2008. Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science [Online], 75(5), pp.958–969. https://doi.org/10.1086/594538.

van Eck, D., 2015. Reconciling ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation, epistemically. Axiomathes [Online], 25, pp.5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-014-9243-x.

Frigg, R., 2022. Models and Theories: A Philosophical Inquiry [Online]. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003285106.

Giere, R.N., 1999. Science Without Laws, Science and its conceptual foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giere, R.N., 2004. How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science [Online], 71(5), pp.742–752. https://doi.org/10.1086/425063.

Giere, R.N., 2006. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Glennan, S., 2002. Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science [Online], 69(S3), pp.342–353. https://doi.org/10.1086/341857.

Glennan, S., 2005. Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online]. Mechanisms in biology, 36(2), pp.443–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.011.

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.

Kaiser, M.I., 2017. The components and boundaries of mechanisms. In: S. Glennan and P.M. Illari, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Mechanisms and Mechanical Philosophy, Routledge handbooks in philosophy. London; New York: Routledge, pp.116–130.

Kaplan, D.M. and Craver, C.F., 2011. The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science [Online], 78(4), pp.601–627. https://doi.org/10.1086/661755.

Kästner, L., 2018. Integrating mechanistic explanations through epistemic perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [Online], 68, pp.68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.011.

Kästner, L. and Haueis, P., 2021. Discovering patterns: On the norms of mechanistic inquiry. Erkenntnis [Online], 86(6), pp.1635–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-019-00174-7.

Khalifa, K., 2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108164276.

Levy, A., 2013. Three kinds of new mechanism. Biology & Philosophy [Online], 28(1), pp.99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9337-z.

Levy, A., 2014. Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philosophers’ Imprint, 14(6), pp.1–15.

Love, A.C. and Nathan, M.J., 2015. The idealization of causation in mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science [Online], 82(5), pp.761–774. https://doi.org/10.1086/683263.

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.

Marcacci, F., Oleksowicz, M. and Conti, A., 2023. Ontic and epistemic differentiation: Mechanistic problems for microbiology and biology. Foundations of Science [Online]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09918-9.

Meheus, J. and Nickles, T., eds., 2009. Models of Discovery and Creativity [Online]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3421-2.

Nathan, M.J., 2021. Black Boxes: How Science Turns Ignorance Into Knowledge. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Nathan, M.J., 2023. Causation vs. causal explanation: Which is more fundamental? Foundations of Science [Online], 28(1), pp.441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09672-2.

Nicholson, D.J., 2012. The concept of mechanism in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [Online], 43(1), pp.152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.014.

Parker, W.S., 2020. Model evaluation: An adequacy-for-purpose view. Philosophy of Science [Online], 87(3), pp.457–477. https://doi.org/10.1086/708691.

Potochnik, A., 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science [Online]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Available at: <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo27128726.html> [visited on 27 October 2023].

Potochnik, A., 2018. Eight Other Questions about Explanation. In: A. Reutlinger and J. Saatsi, eds. Explanation Beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-Causal Explanations [Online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.53–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198777946.003.0004.

de Regt, H.W., 2015. Scientific understanding: truth or dare? Synthese [Online], 192(12), pp.3781–3797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0538-7.

de Regt, H.W., 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Salmon, W.C., 1984. Scientific explanation: Three basic conceptions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association [Online], (2), pp.293–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1984.2.192510.

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].

Sheredos, B., 2016. Re-reconciling the epistemic and ontic views of explanation (or, why the ontic view cannot support norms of generality). Erkenntnis [Online], 81(5), pp.919–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-015-9775-5.

Wimsatt, W.C., 1974. Complexity and Organization. In: K.F. Schaffner and R.S. Cohen, eds. PSA 1972: Proceedings of the 1972 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association [Online], Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp.67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2140-1_5.

Woodward, J.F., 2008. Comment: Levels of Explanation and Variable Choice. In: K.S. Kendler and J. Parnas, eds. Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry: Explanation, Phenomenology, and Nosology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.216–235.

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 Bechtel, W., 2007. Mechanisms and psychological explanation. In: P. Thagard, ed. Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science [Online]. Elsevier, pp.31–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451540-7/50019-0.

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