Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanistic Explanation in Engineering Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Philosophy of Science and Engineering Design

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Philosophy ((BRIEFSPHILOSOPH))

  • 478 Accesses

Abstract

Explanation already loomed large in Chap. 1 on the explanatory utility of function ascriptions in engineering. In this chapter we take a closer look at the structure of (mechanistic) explanation in engineering. This analysis highlights different meanings that engineers attach to the notion of function, and clarifies the explanatory relevance of this ambiguity, it suggests an extension of the mechanistic program when applied to engineering science and, moreover, contains general lessons on the explanatory power of mechanistic explanations. In explicating the structure of mechanistic explanation, we will also address the question (iii) ‘How does artifact x realize its capacity to ϕ?’ and the relevance of function ascription in procuring an answer to this question. (we will address this relevance both for type and token-level cases).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term ‘archetypical’ here refers to ‘most common’; the three conceptualizations of function are not meant to be exhaustive. For instance, some engineers use ‘function’ to refer to intentional behaviors of agents (cf. van Eck 2010). In reverse engineering analyses, ‘function’ refers to actual or expected behavior, without the normative connotation ‘desired’.

  2. 2.

    That is, structural and behavioral characteristics are considered irrelevant in a first round functional analysis of malfunction. After this analysis, more detailed behavioral models of components and their behaviors are used for identifying specific explanatorily relevant structural and behavioral characteristics of malfunctioning components/sub mechanisms (Bell et al. 2007). However, immediately specifying these details in functional models is taken to result in listing a lot of irrelevant details.

  3. 3.

    Note that behavior and effect descriptions of function describe, in different ways, the contributions of components to mechanisms of which they are a part. The distinction between behavior and effect function thus is not to be conflated with the distinction between a mechanism description and a description of a mechanisms’ overall activity. Neither is the behavior-effect function distinction to be conflated with the distinction between ‘isolated’ and ‘contextual’ descriptions of an entity’s activity (Craver 2001): isolated descriptions describe activities without taking into account the mechanisms in which they are situated; contextual descriptions describe activities in terms of the mechanistic contexts in which they are situated and to which they contribute. Both behavior and effect functions are of the contextual variety, describing contributions of components to the mechanisms of which they are a part.

  4. 4.

    This is in keeping with engineering practice. After a first round functional analysis of malfunction, more detailed behavioral models of components and their behaviors are used in FIL for assessing specific structural characteristics of malfunctioning components (Bell et al. 2007).

  5. 5.

    I adapt this example from Nervi (2010).

References

  • Bechtel, W., & Abrahamson, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J., Snooke, N., & Price, C. (2007). A Language for functional interpretation of model based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21, 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braillard, P.A. (2015). Prospects and limits of explaining biological systems in engineering terms. In P.A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology (pp. 319–344). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J. R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers, 16, 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Csete, M. E., & Doyle, J. C. (2002). Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science, 295, 1664–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y. M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 16, 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Samad, H., Kurata, H., Doyle, J. C., Gross, C. A., & Khammash, M. (2005). Surviving heat shock: control strategies for robustness and performance. PNAS, 102(8), 736–2741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erden, M. S., Komoto, H., van Beek, T. J., D’Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22, 147–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, A. K. (2013). A 30-year case study and 15 principles: Implications of an artificial intelligence methodology for functional modeling. AIEDAM, 27(3), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, P. G., & Woollons, D. J. (1998). Failure modes and effects analysis of complex engineering systems using functional models. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 12(4), 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwell, L. H., Hopfield, J. J., Leibner, S., & Murray, A. W. (1999). From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature, 402, C47–C52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2010). Function and organization: Comparing the mechanisms of protein synthesis and natural selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: Industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology, 1, 237–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazebnik, Y. (2002). Can a biologist fix a radio?—Or, What I learned while studying apoptosis. Cancer Cell, 2, 179–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of science, 80, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, A. (2014). Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philosopher’s imprint, 6, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8, 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P. K., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam-Taaheri, S. (2011). Understanding Pathology in the context of physiological mechanisms: The practicality of a broken-normal view. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 603–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nervi, M. (2010). Mechanism, malfunctions and explanation in medicine. Biology and Philosophy, 25, 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ookubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 07), 28-31 Aug 2007, Paris, France: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (1998). Product evolution: A reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design, 10, 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1988). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. B., & Wood, K. L. (2000). Development of a Functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. B., Wood, K. L., & Crawford, R. H. (1998). A heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. ASME proceedings, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. B., Wood, K. L., & Crawford, R. H. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies, 21, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2003). Pathways to biomedical discovery. Philosophy of Science, 70, 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin, C. J., & Axelrod, J. D. (2005). Understanding biology by reverse engineering the control. PNAS, 102(12), 4219–4220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, D. (2010). On the conversion of functional models: Bridging differences between functional taxonomies in the modeling of user actions. Research in Engineering Design, 21(2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, D. (2011). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(11–12), 839–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, D. (2015a). Mechanistic explanation in engineering science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 349–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, D. (2015b). Validating function-based design methods: An explanationist perspective. Philosophy and Technology, 28, 511–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas, P. E. (2009). The Flexible Meaning of Function in Engineering, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 09):vol. 2. 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Dingmar van Eck

Authors
  1. Dingmar van Eck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dingmar van Eck .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Eck, D. (2016). Mechanistic Explanation in Engineering Science. In: The Philosophy of Science and Engineering Design. SpringerBriefs in Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-35155-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation