Explaining the apocalypse: the end-Permian mass extinction and the dynamics of explanation in geohistory.
Explanation is a perennially hot topic in philosophy of science. Yet philosophers have exhibited a curious blind spot to the questions of how explanatory projects develop over time, as well as what processes are involved in generating their developmental trajectories. This paper examines these quest...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 199; no. 3/4; pp. 10441 - 10475 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Dec2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=154096902&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 154096902 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2021 vid: 199 iid: 3/4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 154096902 10.1007/s11229-021-03254-w ppf: 10441 ppct: 34 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 2.2MB tig: atl: Explaining the apocalypse: the end-Permian mass extinction and the dynamics of explanation in geohistory. aug: au: Dresow, Max affil: Department of Philosophy and Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA su: Apocalypse Explanation Philosophy of science Mass extinctions sug: subj: Apocalypse Explanation Philosophy of science Mass extinctions keyword: Characterization End-Permian mass extinction Historical science One-shot hypotheses Structured problem agenda ab: Explanation is a perennially hot topic in philosophy of science. Yet philosophers have exhibited a curious blind spot to the questions of how explanatory projects develop over time, as well as what processes are involved in generating their developmental trajectories. This paper examines these questions using research into the end-Permian mass extinction as a case study. It takes as its jumping-off point the observation that explanations of historical events tend to grow more complex over time, but it goes beyond this observation by scrutinizing the processes responsible for generating this pattern. Surveying several decades of research into the end-Permian extinction, I suggest that the principal "driver" of explanation in geohistory is non-explanatory work: work that is undertaken to increase our descriptive understanding of a phenomenon, not to test a particular explanatory claim. Non-explanatory work drives explanation by imposing or eliminating demands on explanation, and by furnishing new resources for constructing explanatory models. Explanations grow more complex because (1) the demands on explanation tend to increase with ongoing characterization of the target phenomenon, and (2) characterization tends grows the roster of explanatory resources. However, the fact that non-explanatory work sometimes eliminates demands on explanation means that this trend is not irreversible. I suggest that to achieve a more rounded view of the dynamics of explanation, philosophers should ask how research into complex phenomena is organized, as well as how explanatory progress depends upon the coordination of different kinds of material and epistemic resources. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|