more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17490

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

Full Idea

17th century mechanists said that interactions governed by chemical, electrical or gravitational forces would have to be explicable in terms of the operation of some atomistic (or corpuscular) kinetic mechanism.

Gist of Idea

17th century mechanists explained everything by the kinetic physical fundamentals

Source

Stuart Glennan (Mechanisms [2008], 'Intro')

Book Ref

'Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science', ed/tr. Psillos,S/Curd,M [Routledge 2010], p.377


A Reaction

Glennan says science has rejected this, so modern mechanists do not reduce mechanisms to anything in particular.


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]