Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T03:03:55.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Science: Why Causes Are Not Enough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ruth Berger
Ruth Berger*
Affiliation:
Starr Litigation Services, inc
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is an empirical critique of causal accounts of scientific explanation. Drawing on explanations which rely on nonlinear dynamical modeling, I argue that the requirement of causal relevance is both too strong and too weak to be constitutive of scientific explanation. In addition, causal accounts obscure how the process of mathematical modeling produces explanatory information. I advance three arguments for the inadequacy of causal accounts. First, I argue that explanatorily relevant information is not always information about causes, even in cases where the explanandum has an identifiable causal history. Second, I argue that treating theoretical explanations as reductions from general causal laws does not accurately describe the types of “top-down” explanations typical of dynamical modeling. Finally, I argue that causal/mechanical accounts of explanation are intrinsically vulnerable to the irrelevance problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 306 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send reprint requests to the author, Starr Litigation Services, inc, 1201 Grand Avenue, West Des Moines, IA, 50265.

‡

I would like to thank Michael Friedman, Frederick Suppe, Noretta Koertge, James Townsend, and David McCarty for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank William Kallfelz, Elinor Berger, and two anonymous reviewers for Philosophy of Science.

References

Beltrami, Edward (1987), Mathematics for Dynamical Modeling. Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Berryman, Alan A. (1987), “The Theory and Classification of Outbreaks”, in Barbosa, Pedro and Schultz, Jack C. (eds.), Insect Outbreaks. San Diego: Academic Press 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, Alan A. (1991), “Can Economic Forces Cause Ecological Chaos? The Case of the Northern California Dungeness Crab Fishery”, Oikos 62, 1: 106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botsford, Louis W., Methot, R. D. Jr., and Johnston, D. F. (1983), “Effort Dynamics of the Northern California Dungeness Crab Fishery”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 40: 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy LXXI: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankin, David. (1984), “Proposed Explanations for Fluctuations in Abundance of Dungeness Crabs: A Review and Critique”, in Brenda R. Melteff (coordinator), Proceedings of the Symposium on Dungeness Crab Biology and Management. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant Report No. 85–3, pp. 305–326.Google Scholar
Hastings, Allan and Higgins, K. (1994), “Persistence of Transients in Spatially Structured Ecological Models”, Science 263: 1133–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, Paul (1989), The Chances of Explanation: Causal Explanation in the Social. Medical, and Physical Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, David. F., Botsford, L. W., Methot, R. D. Jr., and Wainwright, T. C. (1986), “Wind Stress and Cycles in Dungeness Crab Catch off California, Oregon, and Washington”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43: 838–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip S. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Philip S. Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 13, Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R., Hankin, D., Yanosko, K., and Snygg, C. (1980), “Stable Cycles in Multistage Recruitment Models: An Application to the Northern California Dungeness Crab Fishery”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 2323–2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melteff, Brenda R. (coordinator) (1985), Proceedings of the Symposium on Dungeness Crab Biology and Management. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant Report No. 85–3.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter (1981), “Probability, Explanation, and Information”, Synthese 48: 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1994), “Causality Without Counterfactuals”, Philosophy of Science 61: 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1990), “Scientific Explanation: Causation And Unification”, Critica XXII, 66: 3–21.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1989), “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation”, in Philip S. Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 13, Scientific Explanation. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–219.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1984) Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (ed.). (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. C. (1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar