Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 9, pp 2263–2283 | Cite as

Stability, breadth and guidance

  • Thomas Blanchard
  • Nadya Vasilyeva
  • Tania Lombrozo
Article

Abstract

Much recent work on explanation in the interventionist tradition emphasizes the explanatory value of stable causal generalizations—i.e., causal generalizations that remain true in a wide range of background circumstances. We argue that two separate explanatory virtues are lumped together under the heading of `stability’. We call these two virtues breadth and guidance respectively. In our view, these two virtues are importantly distinct, but this fact is neglected or at least under-appreciated in the literature on stability. We argue that an adequate theory of explanatory goodness should recognize breadth and guidance as distinct virtues, as breadth and guidance track different ideals of explanation, satisfy different cognitive and pragmatic ends, and play different theoretical roles in (for example) helping us understand the explanatory value of mechanisms. Thus keeping track of the distinction between these two forms of stability yields a more accurate and perspicuous picture of the role that stability considerations play in explanation.

Keywords

Explanation Interventionism Stability Mechanisms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank James Woodward and an anonymous reviewer for very valuable comments.

References

  1. Amos, C. I., Spitz, M. R., & Cinciripini, P. (2010). Chipping away at the genetics of smoking behavior. Nature Genetics, 42, 366–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, J. (2008). Causation in psychiatry. In K. Kendler & J. Parnas (Eds.), Philosophical issues in psychiatry (pp. 196–216). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hitchcock, C. (2012). Portable causal dependence: A tale of consilience. Philosophy of Science, 79, 942–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hitchcock, C., & Woodward, J. (2003). Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth. Noûs, 37, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kendler, K. (2005). A gene for…: The nature of gene action in psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1243–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lombrozo, T. (2010). Causal-explanatory pluralism: How intentions, functions, and mechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 303–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lombrozo, T. (2011). The instrumental value of explanations. Philosophy Compass, 6, 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99, 167–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Malaterre, C. (2011). Making sense of downward causation in manipulationism: Illustrations from cancer research. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33, 537–562.Google Scholar
  12. Murray, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Effects of manipulation on attributions of causation, free will and moral responsibility. Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12338. (advance online publication).Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, J., & Shaw, A. (2015). Manipulating morality: Third-party intentions alter moral judgments by changing causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 39, 1320–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Potochnik, A. (2015). Causal patterns and adequate explanations. Philosophical Studies, 172, 1163–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spirtes, P., & Scheines, R. (2004). Causal inference of ambiguous manipulations. Philosophy of Science, 71, 833–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steel, D. (2006). Methodological individualism, explanation, and invariance. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36, 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strevens, M. (2007). Why represent causal relations? In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy and computation (pp. 345–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Vasilyeva, N., Blanchard, T., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Stable causal relationships are better causal relationships. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2263–2268). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  20. Waters, K. (2007). Causes that Make a Difference. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 551–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weslake, B. (2010). Explanatory depth. Philosophy of Science, 77, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Woodward, J. (2006). Sensitive and insensitive causation. Philosophical Review, 115, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woodward, J. (2008). Mental causation and neural mechanisms. In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced (pp. 218–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Woodward, J. (2010). Causation in biology: Stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation. Biology and Philosophy, 25, 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woodward, J. (2011). Mechanisms revisited. Synthese, 183, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Woodward, J. (2015). The problem of variable choice. Synthese. Online version available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0810-5 (forthcoming).
  28. Ylikoski, P., & Kuorikoski, J. (2010). Dissecting explanatory power. Philosophical Studies, 148, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyIllinois Wesleyan UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations