Elucidating and embedding: two functions of how-possibly explanations

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Franziska Reinhard
{"title":"Elucidating and embedding: two functions of how-possibly explanations","authors":"Franziska Reinhard","doi":"10.1007/s13194-025-00646-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Philosophers of science have variously tried to characterize how-possibly explanations (HPEs) and distinguish them from how-actually explanations (HAEs). I argue that existing contributions to this debate have failed to pay attention to the different, but complementary, functions possibilities play in scientific explanations. To bring these functions to the fore, I introduce a distinction between what I call <i>elucidating</i> and <i>embedding</i> HPEs. While elucidating HPEs specify and demonstrate possible processes for a given research target, embedding HPEs demonstrate how the research target fits into a space of suitably constrained possibilities. I specify both functions of HPE with reference to two case studies from origins-of-life research. I contrast my distinction with an alternative proposal by Wirling and Grüne-Yanoff (2024) to highlight that focusing on the <i>functions</i>, rather than <i>types</i>, of possibilities in explanation is better suited to account for key scientific practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00646-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Philosophers of science have variously tried to characterize how-possibly explanations (HPEs) and distinguish them from how-actually explanations (HAEs). I argue that existing contributions to this debate have failed to pay attention to the different, but complementary, functions possibilities play in scientific explanations. To bring these functions to the fore, I introduce a distinction between what I call elucidating and embedding HPEs. While elucidating HPEs specify and demonstrate possible processes for a given research target, embedding HPEs demonstrate how the research target fits into a space of suitably constrained possibilities. I specify both functions of HPE with reference to two case studies from origins-of-life research. I contrast my distinction with an alternative proposal by Wirling and Grüne-Yanoff (2024) to highlight that focusing on the functions, rather than types, of possibilities in explanation is better suited to account for key scientific practices.

阐明和嵌入:如何可能解释的两个功能
科学哲学家们以各种不同的方式试图描述“可能如何解释”(HPEs)的特征,并将它们与“实际如何解释”(has)区分开来。我认为,对这场辩论的现有贡献没有注意到可能性在科学解释中发挥的不同但互补的作用。为了突出这些功能,我介绍了我所谓的阐明和嵌入hp之间的区别。在阐明hpe时,指定并演示了给定研究目标的可能过程,嵌入hpe则演示了研究目标如何适应适当约束可能性的空间。我以生命起源研究中的两个案例来说明HPE的两个功能。我将我的区别与Wirling和gr内-亚诺夫(2024)的另一种建议进行对比,以强调在解释中关注可能性的功能,而不是类型,更适合解释关键的科学实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信