more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The behaviour of subatomic particles cannot be further analysed into structures and this may tempt us to regard these as instances of 'brute' ungrounded dispositions which end any possible regress of explanation.
Gist of Idea
Subatomic particles may terminate explanation, if they lack structure
Source
Stephen Mumford (Dispositions [1998], 06.4)
Book Ref
Mumford,Stephen: 'Dispositions' [OUP 1998], p.133
A Reaction
This seems right, if it is 'structural' explanations we are after (as I think we are) which look for mechanisms. An electron seems to be just three dispositions and no structure, so there is nothing more to say. Ladyman scorns this account.
Related Idea
Idea 14319 Nomothetic explanations cite laws, and structural explanations cite mechanisms [Mumford]
16737 | The best explanations get down to primary basics, but others go less deep [Boyle] |
12737 | Nature can be fully explained by final causes alone, or by efficient causes alone [Leibniz] |
14873 | If we find a hypothesis that explains many things, we conclude that it explains everything [Nietzsche] |
12176 | Science does not aim at ultimate explanations [Popper] |
3128 | It's not at all clear that explanation needs to stop anywhere [Rey] |
15057 | Ultimate explanations are in 'grounds', which account for other truths, which hold in virtue of the grounding [Fine,K] |
16564 | There are four types of bottom-level activities which will explain phenomena [Machamer/Darden/Craver] |
14320 | Subatomic particles may terminate explanation, if they lack structure [Mumford] |
14337 | Maybe dispositions can replace the 'laws of nature' as the basis of explanation [Mumford] |
14343 | To avoid a regress in explanations, ungrounded dispositions will always have to be posited [Mumford] |
15011 | If the ultimate explanation is a list of entities, no laws, patterns or mechanisms can be cited [Sider] |
14389 | There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of mechanisms and regularities [Leuridan] |