Mechanisms and Causality
Views
From PhilosophyWiki.org (public beta)
To add to this page, click on one of the buttons below, or use the discussion link above to discuss its contents (registered users only).
|
|
|
|
Authors: Phyllis McKayPhyllis McKay, Jon WilliamsonJon Williamson
Affiliation: University of KentUniversity of Kent
Source: Causation 1500-2000
Keywords: causation, mechanism , science, history
Synopsis
We pursue the relation between causality and the comparatively neglected concept of mechanism. Mechanisms have been neglected despite their vast importance to the sciences over several centuries, at the heart of the burgeoning of many different scientific disciplines. The word ‘mechanism’ has been used in physics, to talk about the motions of the planets; throughout the life sciences, to talk about things as diverse as protein synthesis and natural selection; in economics as is shown by this year’s award of the Nobel prize for mechanism design; and is increasingly used in other social sciences.
We have two interests in this paper: historical and current. Historically, it is interesting that while causal talk was largely out of fashion in the sciences from around 1910-1990, the concept of mechanism was growing in use. Does this show that causality and mechanism are quite distinct? We argue that the sciences were actually always concerned with causality and a lot of causal work was done by talk of mechanisms rather than causes.
In terms of current scientific and philosophical concerns we explore what use there is for talk of mechanisms in the 21st C now that causality has been rendered scientifically respectable with the creation of formal methods of causal inference by Judea Pearl and others. We argue that mechanisms are still very important, and illustrate how they are used in a certain sort of causal explanation. We argue, however, that different sciences think of and use mechanisms in quite different ways, illustrating this by comparing protein synthesis and natural selection: two mechanisms that have very close links, but that are nevertheless also quite different. We pick out crucial differences – and crucial similarities that explain why they are both legitimately thought of as mechanisms.
