Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T10:29:26.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roles of Possibility and Mechanism in Narrative Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Daniel G. Swaim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a fairly long-standing distinction between what are called the ideographic as opposed to nomothetic sciences. The nomothetic sciences, such as physics, offer explanations in terms of the laws and regular operations of nature. The ideographic sciences, such as natural history (or, more controversially, evolutionary biology), cast explanations in terms of narratives. This article offers an account of what is involved in offering an explanatory narrative in the historical (ideographic) sciences. I argue that narrative explanations involve two chief components: a possibility space and an explanatory causal mechanism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 858 - 868
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

†

Special thanks to an audience at the KU Leuven workshop Historical and Scientific Explanation: Reexamining the Connection, especially Bendik Aaby, John Beatty, Hugh Desmond, Mary Morgan, Paul Roth, and Gunnar Schumann. My thanks to an udience at the PSA 2018 meeting, especially Stuart Glennan, Henk de Regt, and Derek Turner. Thanks to Charles Pence for comments on an earlier version of this article. Finally, thanks to Michael Weisberg for his patience in reading and giving comments on many versions of this article.

References

Beatty, John. 2016. “What Are Narratives Good For?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 58:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, and Pemberton, John. 2013. “Aristotelian Powers: Without Them, What Would Science Do?” In Powers and Capacities in Philosophy: The New Aristotelianism, ed. Groff, Ruth and Greco, John. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, Simon. 2003. Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Adrian Mitchell. 2014. “Narratives, Mechanisms and Progress in Historical Science.” Synthese 191 (6): 1163–83..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl. 2002. “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, Niles, and Gould, Stephen J.. 1972. “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” In Models in Paleobiology, ed. Schopf, Thomas J. M.. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.Google Scholar
England, Jeremy. 2015. “Dissipative Adaptation in Self-Driven Assembly.” Nature Nanotechnology 10:919–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc. 1992. “The Historical Nature of Evolutionary Theory.” In History and Evolution, ed. Nitecki, Matthew and Nitecki, Doris. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Raphael, and Lazcano, Antonio. 2012. “The Forgotten Dispute: A. I. Oparin and H. J. Muller on the Origin of Life.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 34 (3): 373–90..Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. 1969. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart. 2002. “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, Stuart. 2010. “Ephemeral Mechanisms and Historical Explanation.” Erkenntnis 72 (2): 251–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, Bruce. 1998. “Contrastive, Non-probabilistic Statistical Explanations.” Philosophy of Science 65 (3): 448–71..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Malcolm, and Olson, Everett. 1994. Invasions of the Land. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Havstad, Joyce C. 2011. “Problems for Natural Selection as a Mechanism.” Philosophy of Science 78 (3): 512–23..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Stewart. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oparin, A. I. 1938. The Origin of Life. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Penny, David. 2005. “An Interpretive Review of the Origin of Life Research.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (4): 633–71..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo. 1999. “Where Do We Come From? A Humbling Look at the Biology of Life’s Origin.” Skeptical Inquirer 99:193–206.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. 2017. “Essentially Narrative Explanations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 62:42–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudwick, M. J. S. 2014. Earth’s Deep History: How It Was Discovered and Why It Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Derek. 2007. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Derek. 2011. Paleontology: A Philosophical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Derek. 2013. “Historical Geology: Methodology and Metaphysics.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502 (2): 11–18..Google Scholar