more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 16563

[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / e. Lawlike explanations ]

Full Idea

It is not regularities that explain but the activities that sustain the regularities.

Gist of Idea

The explanation is not the regularity, but the activity sustaining it

Source

Machamer,P/Darden,L/Craver,C (Thinking About Mechanisms [2000], 7)

Book Ref

-: 'Philosophy of Science' [-], p.22

A Reaction

Good, but we had better not characterise the 'activities' in terms of regularities.

The 35 ideas with the same theme [explain events by showing laws imply them]:

13109 Chance is inexplicable, because we can only explain what happens always or usually [Aristotle]
12357 Explanation and generality are inseparable [Aristotle, by Wedin]
15282 Facts should be deducible from the theory and initial conditions, and prefer the simpler theory [Osiander, by Harré/Madden]
12107 Positivism explains facts by connecting particular phenomena with general facts [Comte]
17091 Explanation is fitting of facts into ever more general patterns of regularity [Mill, by Ruben]
17550 We give a mathematical account of a system of natural connections in order to clarify them [Heisenberg]
17673 The modern worldview is based on the illusion that laws explain nature [Wittgenstein]
6755 For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical [Hempel, by Bird]
17083 The covering-law model is for scientific explanation; historical explanation is quite different [Hempel]
13049 We must distinguish true laws because they (unlike accidental generalizations) explain things [Salmon]
13051 Deductive-nomological explanations will predict, and their predictions will explain [Salmon]
13053 A law is not enough for explanation - we need information about what makes a difference [Salmon]
17684 To explain observations by a regular law is to explain the observations by the observations [Armstrong]
15556 Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis]
16169 Laws apply to separate domains, but real explanations apply to intersecting domains [Cartwright,N]
16171 The covering law view assumes that each phenomenon has a 'right' explanation [Cartwright,N]
16167 Laws get the facts wrong, and explanation rests on improvements and qualifications of laws [Cartwright,N]
16176 Covering-law explanation lets us explain storms by falling barometers [Cartwright,N]
16177 I disagree with the covering-law view that there is a law to cover every single case [Cartwright,N]
16180 You can't explain one quail's behaviour by just saying that all quails do it [Cartwright,N]
16809 Good explanations may involve no laws and no deductions [Lipton]
16810 Deduction explanation is too easy; any law at all will imply the facts - together with the facts! [Lipton]
16829 We reject deductive explanations if they don't explain, not if the deduction is bad [Lipton]
16563 The explanation is not the regularity, but the activity sustaining it [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
14342 General laws depend upon the capacities of particulars, not the other way around [Mumford]
4802 Just citing a cause does not enable us to understand an event; we also need a relevant law [Psillos]
4804 The 'covering law model' says only laws can explain the occurrence of single events [Psillos]
4805 If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole [Psillos]
16245 Laws should help explain the things they govern, or that manifest them [Maudlin]
6758 'Covering law' explanations only work if no other explanations are to be found [Bird]
6759 Livers always accompany hearts, but they don't explain hearts [Bird]
13229 Maybe an instance of a generalisation is more explanatory than the particular case [Steiner,M]
12790 Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything [Leuridan]
14569 It is tempting to think that only entailment provides a full explanation [Mumford/Anjum]
17939 Mathematics can reveal structural similarities in diverse systems [Colyvan]