The case for regularity in mechanistic causal explanation
- 513 Downloads
How regular do mechanisms need to be, in order to count as mechanisms? This paper addresses two arguments for dropping the requirement of regularity from the definition of a mechanism, one motivated by examples from the sciences and the other motivated by metaphysical considerations regarding causation. I defend a broadened regularity requirement on mechanisms that takes the form of a taxonomy of kinds of regularity that mechanisms may exhibit. This taxonomy allows precise explication of the degree and location of regular operation within a mechanism, and highlights the role that various kinds of regularity play in scientific explanation. I defend this regularity requirement in terms of regularity’s role in individuating mechanisms against a background of other causal processes, and by prioritizing mechanisms’ ability to serve as a model of scientific explanation, rather than as a metaphysical account of causation. It is because mechanisms are regular, in the expanded sense described here, that they are capable of supporting the kinds of generalizations that figure prominently in scientific explanations.
KeywordsMechanisms Causation Regularity Explanation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Illari P. M., Williamson J. (2010) Mechanisms are real and local. In: Illari P. M., Russo F., Williamson J. Causality in the sciences. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kandel E., Schwartz J., Jessel T. (2000) Principles of neural science. McGraw-Hill Companies, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Victor J. D., Purpura K. P. (1996) Nature and precision of temporal coding in visual cortex: A metric-space analysis. Journal of Neurophysiology 76(2): 1310–1326Google Scholar
- Woodward J. (2003) Making things happen. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar