Scientific explanation and understanding: unificationism reconsidered

Bangu, Sorin

doi:10.1007/s13194-016-0148-y

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A standard example is the orbit of a planet that is explained by a law of nature (gravitation) plus initial and boundary conditions (like the mass of the planet). This position has been elaborated by a group of philosophers that spans several generations, among them the classic Hempel (in the 1930s), the unconventional Toulmin (1960s), and Bangu () who investigates the role of unification for understanding. This position stresses the objective component of understanding—does the form of an orbit in fact derive from law(s) plus conditions?…”

Section: Understanding and Complexity—the Dilemma Of Growth (J Lenhard)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophical Perspectives on Earth System Modeling: Truth, Adequacy, and Understanding

Gramelsberger

Lenhard

Parker

2020

J Adv Model Earth Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore three questions about Earth system modeling that are of both scientific and philosophical interest: What kind of understanding can be gained via complex Earth system models? How can the limits of understanding be bypassed or managed? How should the task of evaluating Earth system models be conceptualized? Key Points:• Earth System Modeling can provide "pragmatic" understanding. • Normative practices help modelers to deal with limits of understanding. • An adequacy-for-purpose approach to model evaluation has implications for practice.

show abstract

Section: Understanding and Complexity—the Dilemma Of Growth (J Lenhard)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophical Perspectives on Earth System Modeling: Truth, Adequacy, and Understanding

Gramelsberger

Lenhard

Parker

2020

J Adv Model Earth Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But this only shows that there is another sense of unification that goes beyond coordination and reduction. Furthermore, it is related to the philosophical proposals that unification is closely linked to understanding and explanation (Bangu 2017;Friedman 1974;Kitcher 1981).…”

Section: Integrative Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, defenders of explanatory unification press the case that theoretical unity has unique virtues. Not only should it address the issue of crisis, but it should also remove ad hoc assumptions and provide a systematic understanding of the whole domain of a given theory and all the phenomena that it explains (Bangu 2017). While one could argue that reduction could also serve this purpose, the usual solutions in cognitive science rely on other strategies.…”

Section: Integrative Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explanations in cognitive science: unification versus pluralism

Miłkowski

Hohol

2020

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate between the defenders of explanatory unification and explanatory pluralism has been ongoing from the beginning of cognitive science and is one of the central themes of its philosophy. Does cognitive science need a grand unifying theory? Should explanatory pluralism be embraced instead? Or maybe local integrative efforts are needed? What are the advantages of explanatory unification as compared to the benefits of explanatory pluralism? These questions, among others, are addressed in this Synthese's special issue. In the introductory paper, we discuss the background of the questions, distinguishing integrative theorizing from building unified theories. On the one hand, integrative efforts involve collaboration between various disciplines, fields, approaches, or theories. These efforts could even be quite temporary, without establishing any long-term institutionalized fields or disciplines, but could also contribute to developing new interfield theories. On the other hand, unification can rely on developing complete theories of mechanisms and representations underlying all cognition, as Newell's "unified theories of cognition", or may appeal to grand principles, as predictive coding. Here, we also show that unification in contemporary cognitive science goes beyond reductive unity, and may involve various forms of joint efforts and division of explanatory labor. This conclusion is one of the themes present in the content of contributions constituting the special issue.

show abstract

“…We need a theory of how mathematical explanations work, and m-unificationism appears to enjoy some antecedent support, as an application of the intuitively-appealing view that the essence of scientific explana-B Robert Knowles r.knowles@leeds.ac.uk tion is unification (unificationism). (Friedman 1974 pioneered unificationism;Bangu 2017;Bartelborth 2002;Jones 1995aJones , b, 2012Kitcher 1981Kitcher , 1989Schurz 1999;Schurz and Lambert 1994;and Weber 1999 provide alternative elaborations and defences.) M-unificationism also has extrinsic interest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sorin Bangu (2017) argues that explanatory unification brings together phenomena under a common ontological reduction. This ontological reduction provides an improved re-conceptualisation of the unified phenomena, providing local understanding of them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unification and mathematical explanation

Knowles

2021

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a sorely-needed evaluation of the view that mathematical explanations in science explain by unifying. Illustrating with some novel examples, I argue that the view is misguided. For believers in mathematical explanations in science, my discussion rules out one way of spelling out how they work, bringing us one step closer to the right way. For non-believers, it contributes to a divide-and-conquer strategy for showing that there are no such explanations in science. My discussion also undermines the appeal to unifying power in support of the enhanced indispensability argument.

show abstract

Scientific explanation and understanding: unificationism reconsidered

Cited by 17 publications

References 34 publications

Philosophical Perspectives on Earth System Modeling: Truth, Adequacy, and Understanding

Philosophical Perspectives on Earth System Modeling: Truth, Adequacy, and Understanding

Explanations in cognitive science: unification versus pluralism

Unification and mathematical explanation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About