The ontic-epistemic debates of explanation revisited: The three-dimensional approach

Main Article Content

Jinyeong Gim

Abstract

After Wesley Salmon’s causal-mechanical stance on explanation in the 1980s, the ontic-epistemic debate of scientific explanations appeared to be resolved in the philosophy of science. However, since the twenty-first century, this debate has been rekindled among philosophers who focus on mechanistic explanations. Nevertheless, its issues have evolved, necessitating scrutiny of the new trends in this debate and a comparison with the original controversy between Carl Hempel and Salmon. The primary objective of this paper is to elucidate three categorical dimensions in the ontic-epistemic debates, spanning from the original to the recent controversies. Subsequently, it will explore why the conception of explanation is linked to representations, what conditions are necessary for linguistic expressions to be explanatory, and what roles norms play in explanation. Consequently, contrary to the common stereotype, it will be argued that mechanistic explanations are more likely to be epistemic rather than ontic.

Article Details

How to Cite
Gim, J. (2024). The ontic-epistemic debates of explanation revisited: The three-dimensional approach. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (74), 99–169. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.74.675
Section
Articles

References

Atkins, P.W., De Paula, J. and Friedman, R., 2014. Physical Chemistry: Quanta, Matter, and Change. Second edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

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

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.

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.

Carnap, R., 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Routlege & Kegan Paul.

Cech, S., 1986. A model for the RNA-catalyzed replication of RNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Online], 83(12), pp.4360–4363. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.12.4360.

Coffa, J.A., 1973. Foundations of Inductive Explanation. PhD Thesis. University of Pittsburgh.

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].

Darden, L., 2006. Reasoning in Biological Discoveries: Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution, Cambridge studies in philosophy and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Ellis, B., 1956. On the relation of explanation to description. Mind [Online], 65(260), pp.498–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/65.1.498.

van Fraassen, B.C., 1980. The Scientific Image, Clarendon library of logic and philosophy. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen, B.C., 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective [Online]. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278220.001.0001.

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

Hempel, C.G. and Oppenheim, P., 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science [Online], 15(2), pp.135–175. https://doi.org/10.1086/286983.

Hempel, C.G., 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.

Hoagland, M.B. et al., 1958. A soluble ribonucleic acid intermediate in protein synthesis. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 231(1), pp.241–257.

Holley, R.W. et al., 1965. Structure of a ribonucleic acid. Science [Online], 147(3664), pp.1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3664.1462.

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.

Jacob, F. and Monod, J., 1961. Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology [Online], 3(3), pp.318–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(61)80072-7.

Judson, H., 2013. The Eighth Day of Creation Makers of the Revolution in Biology [Online]. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Available at: <https://www.academia.edu/32355053/Horace_Judson_THE_EIGHTH_DAY_OF_CREATION_Makers_of_the_Revolution_in_Biology> [visited on 8 December 2023].

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. 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.

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.

Pardee, A.B., Jacob, F. and Monod, J., 1959. The genetic control and cytoplasmic expression of “Inducibility” in the synthesis of β-galactosidase by E. coli. Journal of Molecular Biology [Online], 1(2), pp.165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(59)80045-0.

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.

Rottman, F. and Nirenberg, M., 1966. RNA codons and protein synthesis: XI. Template activity of modified RNA codons. Journal of Molecular Biology [Online], 21(3), pp.555–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(66)90027-1.

Salmon, W.C., 1971. Statistical Explanation & Statistical Relevance, Pitt paperback 69. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wright, C., 2012. Mechanistic explanation without the ontic conception. European Journal for Philosophy of Science [Online], 2(3), pp.375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0048-8.

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.

Zaug, A.J., Grabowski, P.J. and Cech, T.R., 1983. Autocatalytic cyclization of an excised intervening sequence RNA is a cleavage–ligation reaction. Nature [Online], 301(5901), pp.578–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/301578a0