Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 6, pp 1163–1183 | Cite as

Narratives, mechanisms and progress in historical science

  • Adrian Mitchell CurrieEmail author
Article

Abstract

Geologists, Paleontologists and other historical scientists are frequently concerned with narrative explanations targeting single cases. I show that two distinct explanatory strategies are employed in narratives, simple and complex. A simple narrative has minimal causal detail and is embedded in a regularity, whereas a complex narrative is more detailed and not embedded. The distinction is illustrated through two case studies: the ‘snowball earth’ explanation of Neoproterozoic glaciation and recent attempts to explain gigantism in Sauropods. This distinction is revelatory of historical science. I argue that at least sometimes which strategy is appropriate is not a pragmatic issue, but turns on the nature of the target. Moreover, the distinction reveals a counterintuitive pattern of progress in some historical explanation: shifting from simple to complex. Sometimes, historical scientists rightly abandon simple, unified explanations in favour of disunified, complex narratives. Finally I compare narrative and mechanistic explanation, arguing that mechanistic approaches are inappropriate for complex narrative explanations.

Keywords

Explanation Narrative Mechanism Historical science  Scientific progress 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Zoe Drayson, Daniel Nolan, Brett Calcott, Kim Sterelny, Arnon Levy, Gladys Kostyrka and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This paper has been presented in various forms to the philosophy departments of ANU and Sydney University, as well as at the 2012 PSA conference—I am grateful for the feedback received there.

References

  1. Alroy, J. (1998). Cope’s rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science, 280, 731–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, H. (2012). The case for regularity in mechanistic causal explanation. Synthese, 189, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty, J., & Carrera, I. (2012). When what had to happen was not bound to happen: History, chance, narrative, evolution. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 5(3), 471–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 36(2), 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity : Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berner, R. A., VandenBrooks, J. M., et al. (2007). Oxygen and evolution. Science, 316(5824), 557–558.Google Scholar
  7. Burness, G. P., Diamond, J., & Flannery, T. (2001). Dinosaurs, dragons, and dwarfs: The evolution of maximal body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(25), 14518–14523.Google Scholar
  8. Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colyvan, M. (2005). Probability and ecological complexity. Biology and Philosophy, 20(4), 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. F. (2005). Beyond reduction: Mechanisms, multifield integration and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosopy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 36(2), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain : Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, R. C. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72(November), 741–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donnadieu, Y., Godderis, Y., Ramstein, G., Nedelec, A., & Meert, J. (2004). A ‘snowball Earth’ climate triggered by continental break-up through changes in runoff. Nature, 428, 303–306.Google Scholar
  15. Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman. vi, (p. 250).Google Scholar
  16. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glennan, S. (2010). Ephemeral mechanisms and historical explanation. Erkenntnis, 72(2), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies, 143(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., et al. (1977). The shape of evolution: A comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology, 3(1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  20. Grantham, T. A. (1999). Explanatory pluralism in paleobiology. Philosophy of Science, 66(3), 236.Google Scholar
  21. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffman, P. F., & Schrag, D. P. (2002). The snowball Earth hypothesis: Testing the limits of global change. Terra Nova, 14(3), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull, D. L. (1975). Central subjects and historical narratives. History and Theory, 14(3), 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull, D. L. (1989). The metaphysics of evolution. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hummel, J., Gee, C. T., et al. (2008). In vitro digestibility of fern and gymnosperm foliage: Implications for sauropod feeding ecology and diet selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1638), 1015–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunt, G., & Roy, K. (2006). Climate change, body size evolution, and Cope’s rule in deep-sea ostracodes. PNAS, 103(5), 1347–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huss, J. (2009). The shape of evolution: The MBL model and clade shape. In D. Sepkoski & M. Ruse (Eds.), The paleobiological revolution : Essays on the growth of modern paleontology (p. 568). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hyde, W. T., Crowley, T. J., et al. (2000). Neoproterozoic ‘snowball Earth’ simulations with a coupled climate/ice-sheet model. Nature, 405(6785), 425–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inkpen, R., & Turner, D. (2012). The topography of historical contingency. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 6(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, F., & Pettit, P. (1992). In defense of explanatory ecumenism. Economics and Philosophy, 8(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jeffares, B. (2008). Testing times: Regularities in the historical sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39(4), 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science : Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, N. (2011). Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs : Understanding the life of giants. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kosso, P. (2001). Knowing the past : Philosophical issues of history and archaeology. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  36. Levy, A. (2013). Three kinds of new mechanism. Biology and Philosophy, 28, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levy, A. (in preperation). Machines & decomposition.Google Scholar
  38. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80(2), 241–261.Google Scholar
  39. Machamer, P., Darden, L., et al. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matthewson, J., & Calcott, B. (2011). Mechanistic models of population-level phenomena. Biology and Philosophy, 26(5), 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McShea, D. W. (1991). Complexity and evolution: What everybody knows. Biology and Philosophy, 6(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Midgley, J. J., et al. (2002). Why were dinosaurs so large? A food quality hypothesis. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 4, 1093–1095.Google Scholar
  43. Powell, R. (2009). Contingency and convergence in macroevolution: A reply to John Beatty. Journal of Philosophy, 106(7), 390–403.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, H. (1988). Representation and reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Raup, D. M. (1991). Extinction: Bad genes or bad luck?. New York: W.W: Norton.Google Scholar
  46. Ruxton, G. D., & Wilkinson, D. M. (2011). The energetics of low browsing in sauropods. Biology Letters, 7, 779–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salmon, Wesley. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sander, P. M., & Clauss, M. (2008). Sauropod gigantism. Science, 322(5899), 200–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sander, P. M., Christian, A., et al. (2011). Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: The evolution of gigantism. Biological Reviews, 86(1), 117–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schopf, J. W., & Klein, C. (1992). The proterozoic biosphere : A multidisciplinary study. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the past. Parsimony, evolution, and inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution. The logic behind the science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univeristy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sterelny, K. (1996). Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biology. Biology & Philosophy, 11(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strevens, M. (2003). Bigger than Chaos: Understanding complexity through probability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tucker, A. (1998). Unique events: The underdetermination of explanation. Erkenntnis, 48(1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tucker, A. (2004). Our knowledge of the past: A philosophy of historiography. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner, D. (2005). Local underdetermination in historical science. Philosophy of Science, 72(1), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner, D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, D. (2009). Beyond detective work: Empirical testing in paleontology. In D. Sepkoski & M. Ruse (Eds.), The paleobiological revolution : Essays on the growth of modern paleontology (p. 568). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, G. E. (1975). Late Precambrian glacial climate and the Earth’s obliquity. Geological Magazine, 112, 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Woodward, J. (2002). What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2002(3), S366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department, RSSSAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations