Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models
- Author
- Raoul Gervais (UGent) and Erik Weber (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- In this paper we argue that in recent literature on mechanistic explanations, authors tend to conflate two distinct features that mechanistic models can have or fail to have: plausibility and richness. By plausibility, we mean the probability that a model is correct in the assertions it makes regarding the parts and operations of the mechanism, i.e., that the model is correct as a description of the actual mechanism. By richness, we mean the amount of detail the model gives about the actual mechanism. First, we argue that there is at least a conceptual reason to keep these two features distinct, since they can vary independently from each other: models can be highly plausible while providing almost no details, while they can also be highly detailed but plainly wrong. Next, focusing on Craver's continuum of how-possibly, to how-plausibly, to how-actually models, we argue that the conflation of plausibility and richness is harmful to the discussion because it leads to the view that both are necessary for a model to have explanatory power, while in fact, richness is only so with respect to a mechanism's activities, not its entities. This point is illustrated with two examples of functional models.
- Keywords
- Explanation, Mechanism, Mechanistic Explanation, Models, Plausibility, Richness, PERCEPTION, INTERACTIVE ACTIVATION MODEL, UNDERSTANDING FACE RECOGNITION
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 242.67 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-3086510
- MLA
- Gervais, Raoul, and Erik Weber. “Plausibility versus Richness in Mechanistic Models.” PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, vol. 26, no. 1, 2013, pp. 139–52, doi:10.1080/09515089.2011.633693.
- APA
- Gervais, R., & Weber, E. (2013). Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models. PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 26(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.633693
- Chicago author-date
- Gervais, Raoul, and Erik Weber. 2013. “Plausibility versus Richness in Mechanistic Models.” PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY 26 (1): 139–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.633693.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Gervais, Raoul, and Erik Weber. 2013. “Plausibility versus Richness in Mechanistic Models.” PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY 26 (1): 139–152. doi:10.1080/09515089.2011.633693.
- Vancouver
- 1.Gervais R, Weber E. Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models. PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 2013;26(1):139–52.
- IEEE
- [1]R. Gervais and E. Weber, “Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models,” PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 139–152, 2013.
@article{3086510,
abstract = {{In this paper we argue that in recent literature on mechanistic explanations, authors tend to conflate two distinct features that mechanistic models can have or fail to have: plausibility and richness. By plausibility, we mean the probability that a model is correct in the assertions it makes regarding the parts and operations of the mechanism, i.e., that the model is correct as a description of the actual mechanism. By richness, we mean the amount of detail the model gives about the actual mechanism. First, we argue that there is at least a conceptual reason to keep these two features distinct, since they can vary independently from each other: models can be highly plausible while providing almost no details, while they can also be highly detailed but plainly wrong. Next, focusing on Craver's continuum of how-possibly, to how-plausibly, to how-actually models, we argue that the conflation of plausibility and richness is harmful to the discussion because it leads to the view that both are necessary for a model to have explanatory power, while in fact, richness is only so with respect to a mechanism's activities, not its entities. This point is illustrated with two examples of functional models.}},
author = {{Gervais, Raoul and Weber, Erik}},
issn = {{0951-5089}},
journal = {{PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY}},
keywords = {{Explanation,Mechanism,Mechanistic Explanation,Models,Plausibility,Richness,PERCEPTION,INTERACTIVE ACTIVATION MODEL,UNDERSTANDING FACE RECOGNITION}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{139--152}},
title = {{Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.633693}},
volume = {{26}},
year = {{2013}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: