European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 347–365 | Cite as

Explanatory integration

  • Andrew Wayne
Original paper in Philosophy of Science


The goal of this paper is to show how scientific explanation functions in the context of idealized models. It argues that the aspect of explanation most urgently requiring investigation is the nature of the connection between global theories and explanatory local models. This aspect is neglected in traditional accounts of explanation (Hempel 1965; Kitcher 1989). The paper examines causal, minimal model, and structural accounts of model-based explanation (Woodward 2003; Batterman and Rice 2014; Bokulich 2011). It argues that they too fail to offer an account of the connection with global theory that can justify the explanatory power of an idealized local model, and consequently these accounts are unable effectively to distinguish explanatory from non-explanatory models. On the account proposed here, scientific explanation requires theoretical integration between the local model described in the explanation and a global theory with independent explanatory power.


Explanation Model Science Idealization 



I am grateful to audiences at the EPSA (2013), LMU Munich ("Explanation Beyond Causation," 2014) and Notre Dame ("Models and Simulations 6," 2014) for feedback on earlier versions of this project. Thanks also to two anonymous referees for helpful comments. This work was supported financially by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


  1. Barnes, E. (1992). Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry. Philosophy of Science 57, 558–571.Google Scholar
  2. Batterman, R. W. (2002). The devil in the details: Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Batterman, R. W. (2005). Critical phenomena and breaking drops: Infinite idealizations in physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 36B(2), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batterman, R. W. (2010). On the explanatory role of mathematics in empirical science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batterman, R., & Rice, C. (2014). Minimal Model Explanations. Philosophy of Science, 81(3), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchet, L. (2014). Gravitational radiation from post-Newtonian sources and Inspiralling compact binaries. Living Reviews in Relativity, 17.  10.12942/lrr-2014-2.
  7. Bokulich, A. (2008). Reexamining the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics: Beyond reductionism and pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bokulich, A. (2009). Explanatory fictions. In Fictions in science : Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization; Routledge studies in the philosophy of science. Mauricio Suárez. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bokulich, A. (2011). How scientific models can explain. Synthese, 180(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collaboration, Ligo Scientific, Collaboration Virgo, et al. 2016. "Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger." Physical Review Letters 116(6): 061102.Google Scholar
  11. Elgin, M., & Sober, E. (2002). Cartwright on explanation and idealization. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giere, R. 2009. "Why scientific models should not be regarded as works of fiction." Fictions in science : Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization; Routledge studies in the philosophy of science ;. Mauricio Suárez. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Healey, R. (2015). How quantum theory helps us explain. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hempel, C. G. 1965. "Aspects of scientific explanation." Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press: 331–496.Google Scholar
  17. Hempel, C. G. and Paul Oppenheim. 1948. "Studies in the Logic of Explanation." Aspects of Scientific Explanation, and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press: 245–290.Google Scholar
  18. Kim, J. (1963). On the logical conditions of deductive explanation. Philosophy of Science, 30, 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, M. (2015). On structural accounts of model-explanations. Synthese, 193(9), 2761–2778.Google Scholar
  20. Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48, 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitcher, P. (1989). "Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World." In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, volume XIII, edited by Philip Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 410-506.Google Scholar
  22. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean Idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reutlinger, A. (2016). Is there a monist theory of causal and non-causal explanations? The counterfactual theory of scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 733-745.Google Scholar
  24. Saatsi, J. (2016). On Explanations from Geometry of Motion. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,
  25. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth : An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wayne, A. (2011). Expanding the scope of explanatory idealization. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 830–841.Google Scholar
  27. Wayne, A. (2012). Emergence and singular limits. Synthese, 184, 341–356.Google Scholar
  28. Wayne, A. (2015). Causal relations and explanatory strategies in physics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(1), 75–89.Google Scholar
  29. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen : A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations