Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-jtjl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T00:28:46.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Mechanisms Really Replace Laws of Nature?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Bert Leuridan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Today, mechanisms and mechanistic explanation are very popular in philosophy of science and are deemed a welcome alternative to laws of nature and deductive-nomological explanation. Starting from Mitchell's pragmatic notion of laws, I cast doubt on their status as a genuine alternative. I argue that (1) all complex-systems mechanisms ontologically must rely on stable regularities, while (2) the reverse need not hold. Analogously, (3) models of mechanisms must incorporate pragmatic laws, while (4) such laws themselves need not always refer to underlying mechanisms. Finally, I show that Mitchell's account is more encompassing than the mechanistic account.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 317 - 340
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank the following people (in alphabetical order) for their helpful comments and criticisms: Leen De Vreese, Isabelle Drouet, Phyllis McKay Illari, Joke Meheus, Sandy Mitchell, Federica Russo, Maarten Van Dyck, Erik Weber, Marcel Weber, and Jon Williamson, as well as three anonymous referees. The author is Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO).

References

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1981. “Causality and Determination.” In Collected Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2, Metaphysics and Philosophy of Mind, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M., 133–47. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, William. 1900. “Problems of Heredity as a Subject for Horticultural Investigation.” Journal for the Royal Horticultural Society 25:54–61.Google Scholar
Bateson, William. 1902. Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defence. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, John. 1995. “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, ed. Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., 45–81. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, John. 1997. “Why Do Biologists Argue like They Do?” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S432–S443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Abrahamsen, Adele. 2005. “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:421–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, William, and Richardson, Robert C. 1993. Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beed, Clive, and Beed, Cara. 2000. “Is the Case for Social Science Laws Strengthening?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30 (2): 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, John, and Pargetter, Robert. 1987. “Functions.” Journal of Philosophy 84 (4): 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, Jim. 2005. “Regularities and Causality: Generalizations and Causal Explanations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:397–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandon, Robert N. 1997. “Does Biology Have Laws? The Experimental Evidence.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S444–S457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, Maureen. 1994. “Philosophers versus Chemists Concerning ‘Laws of Nature.’” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 25 (4): 613–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2006. “When Mechanistic Models Explain.” Synthese 153:355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Robert. 1975. “Functional Analysis.” Journal of Philosophy 72:741–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 1991. Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Vries, Hugo. 1900. “The Law of Segregation of Hybrids” [Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde]. In The Origin of Genetics: A Mendel Source Book, ed. Stern, C. and Sherwood, E. R., 107–17. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Dowe, Phillip. 2000. Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fara, Michael. 2006. “Dispositions.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1990. Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1995. “Laws and Experiment.” In Laws of Nature: Essays on the Philosophical, Scientific and Historical Dimensions, ed. Weinert, F., 191–207. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 2003. “Experiment in Physics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1889. Natural Inheritance. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1897. “The Average Contribution of Each Several Ancestor to the Total Heritage of the Offspring.” Proceedings of the Royal Society 61:401–13.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. 1996. “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation.” Erkenntnis 44:49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. 2002. “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1973. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Austin B. 1965. “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58:295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klug, William S., and Cummings, Michael R. 1997. Concepts of Genetics. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Leuridan, Bert. 2007. “Galton's Blinding Glasses: Modern Statistics Hiding Causal Structure in Early Theories of Inheritance.” In Causality and Probability in the Sciences, ed. Russo, F. and Williamson, J., 243–62. Texts in Philosophy. London: College.Google Scholar
Leuridan, Bert, Weber, Erik, and Dyck, Maarten Van. 2008. “The Practical Value of Spurious Correlations: Selective versus Manipulative Policy.” Analysis 68:298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter. 2004. “Activities and Causation: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Mechanisms.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl F. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1984. “Two Ideals of Explanation in Natural Science.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9:205–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Gregor. 1865/1933. Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden. Ostwald's Klassiker der Exakten Wissenschaften. Leipzig: Akademische.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 1997. “Pragmatic Laws.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S468–S479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2000. “Dimensions of Scientific Law.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 242–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2009. Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity and Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H. 1919. The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia: Lippincott.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H. 1926/1928. The Theory of the Gene. Rev. ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H., Sturtevant, Alfred, Muller, Hermann, and Bridges, Calvin. 1915. The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Elizabeth W., Pargetter, Robert, and Jackson, Frank. 1982. “Three Theses about Dispositions.” American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (3): 251–57.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2004. “A Glimpse of the Secret Connexion: Harmonizing Mechanisms with Counterfactuals.” Perspectives on Science 12 (3): 288–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans, ed. 2003a. The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2003b. “Technology and Theory in Experimental Science.” In Radder 2003a, 152–73.Google Scholar
Reiss, Julian. 2007. “Do We Need Mechanisms in the Social Sciences?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37 (2): 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John T. 2004. “There Are No Laws of the Social Sciences.” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. Hitchcock, C., 151–67. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. Keith. 2004. “The Mechanisms of Emergence.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2): 260–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1997. “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S458–S467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Erik, and Leuridan, Bert. 2008. “Counterfactual Causality, Empirical Research and the Role of Theory in the Social Sciences.” Historical Methods 41 (4): 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Marcel. 2008. “Causes without Mechanisms: Experimental Regularities, Physical Laws, and Neuroscientific Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 75 (5): 995–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2002. “What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2003a. “Experimentation, Causal Inference, and Instrumental Realism.” In Radder 2003a, 87–118.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2003b. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar