Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 193, Issue 5, pp 1387–1407 | Cite as

One mechanism, many models: a distributed theory of mechanistic explanation

  • Eric Hochstein
S.I.: Neuroscience and Its Philosophy

Abstract

There have been recent disagreements in the philosophy of neuroscience regarding which sorts of scientific models provide mechanistic explanations, and which do not (e.g. computational models, dynamical models, topological models). These disagreements often hinge on two commonly adopted, but conflicting, ways of understanding mechanistic explanations: what I call the “representation-as” account, and the “representation-of” account. In this paper, I argue that neither account does justice to neuroscientific practice. In their place, I offer a new alternative that can defuse some of these disagreements. I argue that individual models do not provide mechanistic explanations by themselves (regardless of what type of model they are). Instead, individual models are always used to complement a huge body of background information and pre-existing models about the target system. With this in mind, I argue that mechanistic explanations are distributed across sets of different, and sometimes contradictory, scientific models. Each of these models contributes limited, but essential, information to the same mechanistic explanation, but none can be considered a mechanistic explanation in isolation of the others.

Keywords

Mechanistic explanation Action potential Computational models Topological models Dynamical models Representation-as Representation-of 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to offer my thanks to the Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience at the University of Waterloo, and the PNP Work in Progress Seminar at Washington University in St Louis, for feedback and advice on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks go to Carl Craver, Gualtiero Piccinini, Doreen Fraser, Anya Plutynski, Kate Shrumm, Mark Povich, Kurt Holukoff, and Robyn Holukoff, for helpful suggestions and guidance in shaping this paper. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Award.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This paper was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (award number: 756-2013-0215).

References

  1. Aldrich, R., Corey, D., & Stevens, C. (1984). A reinterpretation of mammalian sodium channel gating based on single channel recording. Nature, 308, 436–441.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (2009). Looking down, around, and up: Mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (2015). Can mechanistic explanation be reconciled with scale-free constitution and dynamics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.03.006.
  5. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanistic alternative. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carandini, M., & Heeger, D. J. (1994). Summation and division by neurons in primate visual cortex. Science, 264, 1333–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carandini, M., & Heeger, D. J. (2012). Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: Replacing scholasticism with science. Philosophy of Science, 75, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chirimuuta, M. (2014). Minimal models and canonical neural computations: The distinctness of computational explanation in neuroscience. Synthese, 191(2), 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colombo, M., Hartmann, S., & van Iersel, R. (2015). Models, mechanisms, and coherence. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 66, 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. (2007). Explaining the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. (2009). Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C. (2014). The ontic account of scientific explanation. In M. I. Kaiser, et al. (Eds.), Explanation in the special sciences: The case of biology and history, synthese library (pp. 27–52). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craver, C. (2015). Graphing the Brain’s dark energy: Network analysis in the search for neural mechanisms. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies in Biology. Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Craver, C. (Under Review). Network models and explanations.Google Scholar
  17. Craver, C., & Bechtel, W. (2006). Mechanism. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (Eds.), Philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Eliasmith, C. (2002). The myth of the turing machine: The failing of functionalism and related theses. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eliasmith, C. (2010). How we ought to describe computation in the brain. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to build a brain: A neural architecture for biological cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eliasmith, C., & Trujillo, O. (2014). The use and abuse of large-scale brain models. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 25, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heeger, D. J. (1992). Normalization of cell responses in the cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 9, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hille, B. (1984). Ionic channels of excitable membranes. Sutherland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  24. Hochstein, E. (2012). Minds, models, and mechanisms: A new perspective on intentional psychology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 24(4), 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hochstein, E. (2013). Intentional models as essential scientific tools. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. Journal of Physiology, 117, 500–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huneman, P. (2010). Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese, 177(2), 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, N. (2014). Bowtie structures, pathway diagrams, and topological explanation. Erkenntnis, 79(5), 1135–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. (1991). Principles of neural science (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan, D. M. (2011). Explanation and description in computational neuroscience. Synthese, 183, 339–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaplan, D. M., & Craver, C. F. (2011). The explanatory force of dynamical and mathematical models in neuroscience: A mechanistic perspective. Philosophy of Science, 78, 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keeley, B. (2000). Shocking lessons from electric fish: The theory and practice of multiple realizability. Philosophy of Science, 67, 444–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Le Cun, Y., & Denker J. S. (1992). Natural versus universal probability, complexity, and entropy. IEEE Workshop on the Physics of Computation. Google Scholar
  34. Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80(2), 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longino, H. (2006). Theoretical pluralism and the scientific study of behavior. In S. Kellert, H. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 102–132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Longino, H. (2013). Studying human behavior: How scientists investigate aggression and sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Modeling systems-level dynamics: Understanding without mechanistic explanation in integrative systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 49, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meves, H. (1983). A new view of the sodium channel. In “News and Views,”. Nature, 306, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milkowski, M. (2011). Beyond formal structure: A mechanistic perspective on computation and implementation. Journal of Cognitive Science, 12(4), 359–379.Google Scholar
  41. Milkowski, M. (2013). A mechanistic account of computational explanation in cognitive science. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Google Scholar
  42. Piccinini, G. (2006). Computational explanation and mechanistic explanation of mind. In M. DeCaro, F. Ferretti, & M. Marraffa (Eds.), C artographies of the mind: The interface between philosophy and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Piccinini, G. (2007). Computing mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 74(4), 501–526.Google Scholar
  44. Piccinini, G. (2008). Computers. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89(1), 32–73.Google Scholar
  45. Piccinini, G. (2015). Physical computation: A mechanist account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Piccinini, G., & Craver, C. (2011). Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches. Synthese, 183, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Potochnik, A. (unpublished). Idealization and the aims of science.Google Scholar
  48. Povich, M. (forthcoming). Mechanisms and model-based fMRI. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  49. Raerinne, J. (2011). Causal and mechanistic explanations in ecology. Acta Biotheoretica, 59, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ross, L. (2015). Dynamical models and explanation in neuroscience. Philosophy of Science, 82(1), 32–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruch, T., & Fulton, J. (1960). Medical physiology and biophysics (18th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  52. Rusanen, A. M., & Lappi, O. (2007). The limits of mechanistic explanation in neurocognitive sciences. In Proceedings of the European cognitive science conference.Google Scholar
  53. Sejnowski, T. J., Churchland, P. S., & Koch, C. (1988). Computational neuroscience. Science, 241, 1299–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shapiro, L. A. (2004). The mind incarnate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shagrir, O. (2006). Why we view the brain as a computer. Synthese, 153(3), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shagrir, O. (2010). Brains as analog-model computers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 41(3), 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singer, S. J., & Nicolson, G. L. (1972). The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes. Science, 175(4023), 720–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stepp, N., Chemero, A., & Turvey, M. (2011). Philosophy for the rest of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Syropoulos, A. (2008). Hypercomputation: Computing beyond the church-turing barrier. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thelen, E., & Smith, B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Trumpler, M. (1997). Techniques of intervention and forms of representation of sodium-channel proteins in nerve cell membranes. Journal of History of Biology, 30(1), 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Gelder, T., & Port, R. (1995). It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R. Port & T. Van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Walmsley, J. (2008). Explanation in dynamical cognitive science. Minds and Machines, 18(3), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woodward, J. (2002). What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account. Philosophy of Science, 69, 366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zednik, C. (2011). The nature of dynamical explanation. Philosophy of Science, 78(2), 238–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology ProgramWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations