Extended Mechanistic Explanations: Expanding the Current Mechanistic Conception to Include More Complex Biological Systems

Article

Abstract

Mechanistic accounts of explanation have recently found popularity within philosophy of science. Presently, we introduce the idea of an extended mechanistic explanation, which makes explicit room for the role of environment in explanation. After delineating Craver and Bechtel’s (2007) account, we argue this suggestion is not sufficiently robust when we take seriously the mechanistic environment and modeling practices involved in studying contemporary complex biological systems. Our goal is to extend the already profitable mechanistic picture by pointing out the importance of the mechanistic environment. It is our belief that extended mechanistic explanations, or mechanisms that take into consideration the temporal sequencing of the interplay between the mechanism and the environment, allow for mechanistic explanations regarding a broader group of scientific phenomena.

Keywords

Mechanism Explanation Complex systems Mechanistic environment 

References

  1. Barnes, D. J., & Chu, D. (2010). Introduction to modeling for biosciences. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (2006). Discovering cell mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (2009). Decomposing, recomposing, and situating circadian mechanisms: Three tasks in developing mechanistic explanations. In H. Leitgeb & A. Hieke (Eds.), Reduction and elimination in philosophy of mind and philosophy of neuroscience (pp. 173–186). Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (2010). The downs and ups of mechanistic research: Circadian rhythm research as an exemplar. Erkenntnis, 73, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W. (2011). Mechanism and biological explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W. (2012). Understanding endogenously active mechanisms: A scientific and philosophical challenge. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2013). Thinking dynamically about biological mechanisms: Networks of coupled oscillators. Foundations of Science, 18(4), 707–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu, D. (2008). Modes of evolution in a parasite-host interaction: dis-entangling factors determining the evolution of regulated fimbriation in E. coli. Biosystems, 95(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chu, D., & Barnes, D. J. (2010). Modeling fimbriae mediated parasite–host interactions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 264(4), 1169–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu, D., & Blomfield, I. (2006). Orientational control is an efficient control mechanism for phase switching in the E. coli fim system. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 244(3), 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chu, D., Roobol, J., & Blomfield, I. (2008). A theoretical interpretation of the transient sialic acid toxicity of a nanR Mutant of Escherichia coli. Journal of Molecular Biology, 375, 875–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. F. (2002). Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanism in neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science, 69, S83–S97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science, 69, S354–S365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delehanty, M. (2005). Emergent properties and the context objection to reduction. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 715–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. El-Labany, S., Sohanpal, B., Lahooti, M., Akerman, R., & Blomfield, I. (2003). Distant cis-active sequences and sialic acid control the expression of fimB in Escherichia coli K-12. Molecular Microbiology, 49, 1109–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Escherichia coli. (2013). Resource Document. CDC National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/index.html. Accessed on 18 Sept. 2013.
  21. Glennan, S. S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glennan, S. S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glennan, S. S. (2010). Mechanisms, causes, and the layered model of the world. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(2), 362–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimm, V., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harms, W. (1997). Reliability and novelty: Information gain in multi-level selection systems. Erkenntnis, 46, 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan, D. M. (2012). How to demarcate the boundaries of cognition. Biology and Philosophy, 27, 545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan, D. M., & Bechtel, W. (2011). Dynamical models: An alternative or complement to mechanistic explanations? Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaplan, D. M., & Craver, C. F. (2011). The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 78(4), 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kandel, E., Schwartz, E., & Jessel, T. M. (1991). Principles of neuroscience. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nair, S. K., & Li, Z. (2012). Quorum sensing: How bacteria can coordinate activity and synchronize their response to external signals? Protein Science, 21(10), 1403–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nealson, K. H., Platt, T., & Hastings, J. W. (1970). Cellular control of the synthesis and activity of the bacterial luminescent system. Journal of Bacteriology, 104(1), 313–322.Google Scholar
  33. Perna, N. T., Plunkett, I. I. I., Guy, B., Valerie, M., Bob, G., Jeremy, D., et al. (2001). Genome sequence of enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Nature, 40(9), 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perovic, S., & Miquel, P.-A. (2011). On gene’s action and reciprocal causation. Foundations of Science, 16, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Severi, E., Hood, D., & Thomas, G. (2007). Sialic acid utilization by bacterial pathogens. Microbiology, 153, 2817–2822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaikh, N., Holt, N. J., Johnson, J. R., & Tarr, P. I. (2007). Fim operon variation in the emergence of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli: An evolutionary and functional analysis. Federation of European Microbiological Societies Microbiology Letters, 273(1), 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shapiro, L., & Sober, E. (2007). Epiphenomenalism—the Do’s and the Don’ts. In G. Wolters & P. Machamer (Eds.), Studies in causality: Historical and contemporary (pp. 235–264). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sifri, C. D. (2008). Quorum sensing: Bacteria talk sense. Clinical Infectious Disease, 47(8), 1070–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skipper, R. A., Jr., & Millstein, R. L. (2005). Thinking about evolutionary mechanisms: Natural selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strand, A., & Oftedal, G. (2009). Functional stability and systems level causation. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traulsen, A., & Nowak, M. (2006). Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103(29), 10952–10955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vidovic, S., Mangalappalli-Illathu, A. K., Xiong, H., & Korber, D. R. (2012). Heat acclimation and the role of RpoS in prolonged heat shock of Escherichia coli O157. Food Microbiology, 30(2), 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Visick, K. L., Foster, J., Doino, J., McFall-Ngai, M., & Ruby, E. G. (2000). Vibrio fischeri lux genes play an important role in colonization and development of the host light organ. Journal of Bacteriology, 182, 4578–4586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Reengineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zadnik, C. (2011). The nature of dynamical explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78(2), 238–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySouthern Connecticut State UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations