Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:26:53.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Frank Jackson  and
Philip Pettit
Frank Jackson
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Philip Pettit
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many of the things that we try to explain, in both our common sense and our scientific engagement with the world, are capable of being explained more or less finely: that is, with greater or lesser attention to the detail of the producing mechanism. A natural assumption, pervasive if not always explicit, is that other things being equal, the more finegrained an explanation, the better. Thus, Jon Elster, who also thinks there are instrumental reasons for wanting a more fine-grained explanation, assumes that in any case the mere fact of getting nearer the detail of production makes such an explanation intrinsically superior: “a more detailed explanation is also an end in itself” (Elster 1985, p. 5). Michael Taylor (1988, p. 96) agrees: “A good explanation should be, amongst other things, as fine-grained as possible.”

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1992 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Block, Ned. 1990. ‘The Computer Model of the Mind.” In An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol 3, edited by Osherson, D. and Smith, E. E., pp. 247–89. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Currie, Gregory. 1984. “Individualism and Global Supervenience.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35:345–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Tocqueville, Alexis. “The Revolution of 1848.” In On Democracy, Revolution and Society. Selected writings edited by Stone, J. and Mennell, S.. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1976. “A Note on Hysteresis in the Social Sciences.” Synthese 33:371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1985. Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank, and Petrit, Philip. 1988. “Functionalism and Broad Content.” Mind 97:381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank. 1990. “Program Explanation: A General Perspective.” Analysis 50:107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank. 1992. “Structural Explanation and Social Theory.” Reductionism and Anti-reductionism, edited by Charles, D. and Lennon, K., pp. 97–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, Susan. 1984. The Content of Social Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Graham, and Pettit, Philip. 1981. Semantics and Social Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, Richard. 1978. “Methodological Individualism and Social Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 45:387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montesquieu, Baron de. 1965. Considerations on the Causes of Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline. Translated by Lowenthal, D.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, David. 1978. For Science in the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Phillip. 1990. “Virtus Normativa: Rational Choice Perspectives.” Ethics 100:725–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Phillip. 1992. The Common Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, Alan. 1970. The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael. 1988. “Rationality and Collective Action.” In Rationality and Revolution, edited by Taylor, Michael, pp. 63–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veyne, Paul. 1984. Writing History. Middletown, CT.: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar