more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 13601

[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / i. Explanations by mechanism ]

Full Idea

Explanations of particular events in history, geology, or evolution, are causal explanations, requiring belief in some causal mechanisms. But they are not essentialist explanations because they do not seek to lay bare the essential structure of anything.

Gist of Idea

Explanations of particular events are not essentialist, as they don't reveal essential structures

Source

Brian Ellis (Scientific Essentialism [2001], 4.05)

Book Ref

Ellis,Brian: 'Scientific Essentialism' [CUP 2007], p.160


A Reaction

The explanation might be two-stage, as when we explain an earthquake by a plate boundary rupture, which is in turn explained by a theory of plate techtonics. The relationship between mechanistic and essentialist explanation needs study.


The 32 ideas with the same theme [explanation by revealing underlying mechanisms]:

Galileo introduced geometrico-mechanical explanation, based on Archimedes [Galileo, by Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Explanation is deducing a phenomenon from some nature better known to us [Boyle]
A machine strikes us as being a rule of movement [Wittgenstein]
Salmon's mechanisms are processes and interactions, involving marks, or conserved quantities [Salmon, by Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Explanation at the quantum level will probably be by entirely new mechanisms [Salmon]
Does an item have a function the first time it occurs? [Salmon]
Explanations reveal the mechanisms which produce the facts [Salmon]
Causation produces productive mechanisms; to understand the world, understand these mechanisms [Salmon]
Salmon's interaction mechanisms needn't be regular, or involving any systems [Glennan on Salmon]
Explanations of particular events are not essentialist, as they don't reveal essential structures [Ellis]
The necessity of Newton's First Law derives from the nature of material things, not from a mechanism [Harré]
If the nature of particulars explains their powers, it also explains their relations and behaviour [Harré/Madden]
Powers and natures lead us to hypothesise underlying mechanisms, which may be real [Harré/Madden]
We want to know not just the cause, but how the cause operated [Lipton]
Mechanisms are not just push-pull systems [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Mechanisms are systems organised to produce regular change [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
A mechanism explains a phenomenon by showing how it was produced [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Our account of mechanism combines both entities and activities [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Descriptions of explanatory mechanisms have a bottom level, where going further is irrelevant [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Modern mechanism need parts with spatial, temporal and function facts, and diagrams [Glennan]
Mechanistic philosophy of science is an alternative to the empiricist law-based tradition [Glennan]
Mechanisms are either systems of parts or sequences of activities [Glennan]
17th century mechanists explained everything by the kinetic physical fundamentals [Glennan]
Unlike the lawlike approach, mechanistic explanation can allow for exceptions [Glennan]
General theories may be too abstract to actually explain the mechanisms [Portides]
Mechanisms can't explain on their own, as their models rest on pragmatic regularities [Leuridan]
We can show that regularities and pragmatic laws are more basic than mechanisms [Leuridan]
Mechanisms are ontologically dependent on regularities [Leuridan]
Mechanisms must produce macro-level regularities, but that needs micro-level regularities [Leuridan]
A structure won't give a causal explanation unless we know the powers of the structure [Mumford/Anjum]
Using mechanisms as explanatory schemes began in chemistry [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry]
Thick mechanisms map whole reactions, and thin mechanism chart the steps [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry]