Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:34:54.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James G. Tabery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stuart Glennan, and the team of Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl Craver have recently provided two accounts of the concept of a mechanism. The main difference between these two versions rests on how the behavior of the parts of the mechanism is conceptualized. Glennan considers mechanisms to be an interaction of parts, where the interaction between parts can be characterized by direct, invariant, change-relating generalizations. Machamer, Darden, and Craver criticize traditional conceptualizations of mechanisms which are based solely on parts interacting and introduce a new concept—activity. This essay is an attempt at carving out a relationship between these two philosophical interpretations of a mechanism. I will claim that, rather than being in conflict, Glennan's concept of interaction and Machamer, Darden, and Craver's notion of activity actually complement one another, each emphasizing a missing element of the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

I benefited greatly from discussions with Carl Craver, Lindley Darden, and Stuart Glennan regarding their respective positions and my own. Peter Machamer, especially, has provided me with extensive feedback on multiple drafts of this work. Thanks also to Jim Bogen, Ingo Brigandt, Megan Delehanty, Paul Griffiths, Brian Hepburn, Alan Love, Robert Poage, Stathis Psillos, Dirk Schlimm, Daniel Sirtes, and Christian Wüthrich for helpful comments on earlier drafts. Forms of this paper were presented at the 5th Annual CMU/Pittsburgh Graduate Conference in Philosophy (March 2003, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and the 4th Athens-Pittsburgh Symposium in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (June 2003, Athens, Greece). Conversations with a number of conference participants helped me to clarify ideas on this topic.

References

Barendregt, Marko (2003), “Genetic Explanation in Psychology”, Genetic Explanation in Psychology 24:67–89.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Richardson, Robert C. (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boumans, Marcel (2001), “Measure for Measure: How Economists Model the World Into Numbers”, Measure for Measure: How Economists Model the World Into Numbers 68:427–453.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2002), “Homology and the Origin of Correspondence”, Homology and the Origin of Correspondence 17:389–407.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1989), Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl (2001), “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy”, Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy 68:53–74.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl, and Darden, Lindley (2001), “Discovering Mechanisms in Neurobiology”, in Machamer, Peter, Grush, R., and Mclaughlin, P. (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (2002), “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms”, Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms 69:S354–S365.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2002), “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis”, Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis 33:1–28.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1961), The Mechanization of the World Picture. Translated by Dikshoorn, C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gillispie, Chalres Coulston (1960), The Edge of Objectivity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (1992), Mechanisms, Models, and Causation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (1996), “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation”, Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation 44:49–71.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (2002a), “Contextual Unanimity and the Units of Selection Problem”, Contextual Unanimity and the Units of Selection Problem 69:118–137.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. (2002b), “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation”, Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation 69:S342–S353.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James (2000), “Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance”, Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance 67:S348–S368.Google Scholar
Griesmaier, Franz-Peter (2003), “On Explaining Phenomenal Consciousness”, On Explaining Phenomenal Consciousness 15:227–242.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco (2001), “Building Economic Machines: The FCC Auctions”, Building Economic Machines: The FCC Auctions 32A:453–477.Google Scholar
Hall, Marie (1952), “The Establishment of the Mechanical Philosophy”, The Establishment of the Mechanical Philosophy 10:412–541.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Gary (2001), “Figure 44: Electron Transport and Chemiosmosis during Photosynthesis”, available at http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit1/eustruct/phofig3.html.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter (2002), “Activities and Causation: the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms”, paper presented at the Eighteenth Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Milwaukee, WI, November 2002.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000), “Thinking About Mechanisms”, Thinking About Mechanisms 67:1–25.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James (2001), “Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method”, Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method 16:575–593.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Peter (1961), “Coupling of Phosphorylation to Electron and Hydrogen Transfer by a Chemiosmotic Type of Mechanism”, Coupling of Phosphorylation to Electron and Hydrogen Transfer by a Chemiosmotic Type of Mechanism 191:144–148.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. (2002), “Symposium on Marshall's Tendencies: 1—How Models Help Economists to Know”, Symposium on Marshall's Tendencies: 1—How Models Help Economists to Know 18:5–16.Google Scholar
Newsome, George L. (2003), “The Debate Between Current Versions of Covariation and Mechanism Approaches to Causal Inference”, The Debate Between Current Versions of Covariation and Mechanism Approaches to Causal Inference 16:87–107.Google Scholar
Rieber, Steven D. (2002), “Causation as Property Acquisition”, Causation as Property Acquisition 109:53–74.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1989), “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation”, in Kitcher, Phillip and Salmon, Wesley (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–219.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1998), Causality and Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Silberstein, Michael (2001), “Converging on Emergence—Consciousness, Causation, and Explanation”, Converging on Emergence—Consciousness, Causation, and Explanation 8:61–98.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul (1999), How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul (2003), “Pathways to Biomedical Discovery”, Pathways to Biomedical Discovery 70:235–254.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard (1971), The Construction of Modern Science. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Wilson, Margaret (1999), Ideas and Mechanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James (2000), “Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences”, Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences 51:197–254.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2001), “Law and Explanation in Biology: Invariance is the Kind of Stability That Matters”. Philosophy of Science 68:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James (2002), “What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account”, What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account 69:S366–S377.Google Scholar