According to an influential epistemological tradition, science explains phenomena on the basis of laws, but the last two decades have witnessed a neo-mechanistic movement that emphasizes the fundamental role of mechanism-based explanations in science, which have the virtue of opening the “black box” of correlations and of providing a genuine understanding of the phenomena. Mechanisms enrich the empirical content of a theory by introducing a new set of variables, helping us to make causal inferences that are not possible on the basis of macro-level correlations (due to well-known problems regarding the underdetermination of causation by correlation). However, the appeal to mechanisms has also a methodological price. They are vulnerable to interference effects; they also face underdetermination problems, because the available evidence often allows different interpretations of the underlying structure of a correlation; they are strongly context-dependent and their individuation as causal patterns can be controversial; they present specific testability problems; finally, mechanism-based extrapolations can be misleading due to the local character of mechanisms. At any rate, the study of mechanisms is an indispensable part of the human sciences, and the problems that they raise can be controlled by quantitative and qualitative methods, and an epistemologically informed exercise of critical thinking.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Andersen, H., 2012, The case for regularity in mechanistic causal explanation, Synthese, 189, 415–432.
Bechtel, W., 2008, Mental Mechanisms, London, Routledge.
Bechtel, W. and Wright, C., 2009. What is psychological explanation? In: J. Symons and P. Calvo (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology, London, Routledge, 113–130.
Craver, C. and Darden, L., 2013, In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Craver, C., 2007, Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Craver, C. and Bechtel, W., 2007, Top-down causation without top-down causes, Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.
Cartwright, N., 2002, Against modularity, the causal Markov Condition and any link between the two, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 411–453.
Crick, F., 1988, What Mad Pursuit, New York, Basic Books.
Cummins, R., 2000, How does it work? versus what are the laws?: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In: F. Keil and R. Wilson (eds.), Explanation and Cognition, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 117–144.
Davidson, D., 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford, Clarendon.
Earman, J., Roberts, J. and Smith, S., 2002, Ceteris paribus lost, Erkenntnis, 57, 281–301.
Elster, J., 2015, Explaining Social Behaviour: More nuts and bolts for the social sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J., 1983a, Sour Grapes: Studies in the subversion of rationality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press – Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Elster, J., 1983b, Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Glennan, S., 2017, The New Mechanical Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Roux, S., 2018, From the mechanical philosophy to early modern mechanisms, in S. Glennann, and P. Illari, The Routledge Handbook of Mechanisms and Mechanical Philosophy, New York and London, Routledge, 26–45.
Hedström, P. and Bearman, P., 2009, What is analytical sociology all about? In: The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3–24.
Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R., 1998, Introduction. In: Social Mechanisms, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1–32.
Hedström, P. and Udehn, L., 2009, Analytical sociology and theories of the middle range. In: P. Hedström and P. Bearman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 25–47.
Hempel, C., 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York, The Free Press.
Illari, P. and Williamson, J., 2012, What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2,119–135.
Kincaid, H., 1996, Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B., 1935, Coral Gardens and Their Magic, New York, American Book Co.
Norkus, Z., 2005, Mechanisms as miracle makers? The rise and inconsistencies of the “mechanismic approach” in social science and history, History and Theory, 44, 348–372.
Pietroski, P. and Rey, G., 1995. “When other things aren’t equal: saving ceteris paribus laws from vacuity”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46, 81–110.
Rasler, K. and Thompson, W., 2004, The democratic peace and a sequential, reciprocal, causal arrow hypothesis, Comparative Political Studies, 37, 879–908.
Risjord, M., 2014, Philosophy of Social Science, New York and London, Routledge.
Rousseau, D., Gelpi, C, Reiter, D. and Huth, P. 1996, Assessing the dyadic nature of the democratic peace, 1918–88, The American Political Science Review, 90, 512–533.
Russo, F., and Williamson, J., 2007, Interpreting causality in the health sciences, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21, 157–170.
Steel, D., 2008, Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in biology and social science, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Von Wright, G. H., 1971, Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press.
Woodward, J., 2002, What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account, Philosophy of Science, 69, S366–S377.
Wright, C. and Bechtel, W., 2007, Mechanisms and psychological explanations. In: P. Thagard (ed.), Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 31–79.