‎TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS

‎ pecifies the CONSTITUENTS OR

S
‎COMPONENTS of the phenomenon

‎ OT YET A DEFINITION because NOT

N
‎CONSTITUTIVE EXPLANATION ‎SUFFICIENT FOR DEMARCATION

‎ he phenomenon is linked to an
T
‎ANTECEDENT CAUSE

‎ he nature of these three types of

T
‎CAUSAL EXPLANATION ‎explanation, best understood if placed in a
‎LEVELS-OF-ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

‎ pecifies the detailed steps that MEDIATES

S
‎BETWEEN THE CAUSE & THE
‎EXPLANANDUM

‎ETIOLOGICAL
‎MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION
‎ he explanandum is NOT AN ENTITY but a
T
‎CONSTITUTIVE
‎CAUSAL RELATION between entities

‎ evel A is LOWER than level B if the entities

L
‎ an be distinguished on the basis of
C
‎at level A ARE PARTS OF THE ENTITIES AT
‎MEREOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
‎LEVEL B

‎ he explanantia ARE CAUSAL FACTORS

T
‎CAUSAL EXPLANATION ‎SITUATED AT THE SAME LEVEL of analysis
‎as the explanandum

‎ ONSTITUTIVE EXPLANATIONS specifies

C
‎LEVELS OF ANALYSIS ‎the PARTS OF THE EXPLANANDUM

‎ tart from and BUILD ON CAUSAL

S
‎EXPLANATIONS in that they specify the
‎mechanisms at a lower level of analysis
‎that mediate between the causal entities
‎and the explanandum

‎ ONSTITUTIVE & MECHANISTIC

C
‎The explanantia ARE PARTS I‎ n addition, specifies THE WAY IN WHICH
‎EXPLANATION
‎different parts and activities are
1‎ .3 TYPES OF ‎ORGANIZED

‎EXPLANATION AND  ‎ ARTS have a LOCATION, SHAPE, &

P
‎LEVELS OF ANALYSIS ‎ORIENTATION
‎ ECHANISTIC EXPLANATIONS specifies
M
‎the PARTS OF THE MECHANISM that ‎ ARTS are the STRUCTURAL ASPECT of the
P
‎mediates between the cause and the ‎explanation
‎explanandum and the ACTIVITIES that
‎spell out the causal relations between parts ‎ re FUNCTIONAL in that they are
A
‎SPECIFIED IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY DO
‎OR ACCOMPLISH

‎ CTIVITIES are the FUNCTIONAL ASPECT of

A
‎the explanation

I‎ n MECHANISTICS EXPLANATION &

‎FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS the OUTPUT of the
‎activities IS THE EXPLANANDUM
‎ xplanations that specify activities but
E
‎leave out structural details are dubbed
‎FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES I‎ f the CONSEQUENCES of an
‎explanandum are ENVISAGED we speak of
‎a FUNCTIONAL (TELEOLOGICAL)
‎EXPLANATION

‎ he OBSERVABLE INPUT is called the

T
‎ SYSTEM produces an OBSERVABLE
A
‎STIMULUS, and the OBSERVABLE OUTPUT
‎OUTPUT (effect) IN RESPONSE TO AN
‎At this level, a PROCESS is described in ‎is a BEHAVIORAL or PHYSIOLOGICAL
‎OBSERVABLE INPUT
‎terms of its OBSERVABLE INPUT, its ‎RESPONSE
‎OBSERVABLE SUPER-LEVEL
‎OBSERVABLE OUTPUT, and the RELATION
‎ he TRANSITION FROM INPUT to OUTPUT
T ‎between the two ‎ he mechanism between input and
T
‎can be called a PROCESS and is mediated
‎output is treated as a BLACK BOX
‎by the mechanism as a whole

‎ he mechanism is DECOMPOSED into

T
‎SUBMECHANISMS, which can themselves
‎be described in terms of their input,
‎outputs and interrelations
‎Each of the submechanisms at the mental
‎MENTAL SUPER-LEVEL
‎ he intermediate inputs and outputs,
T ‎into finer-grained submechanisms
‎which are NOT OBSERVABLE, are called
‎MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS and their
‎RELATIONS or ACTIVITIES among them are
‎called MENTAL OPERATIONS
‎THREE SUPER-LEVELS
‎BRAIN SUPER-LEVEL
‎ t the final stage of decomposition, they
A
‎correspond to BRAIN PROCESSES situated
‎at the BRAIN SUPER-LEVEL
‎super-level may be decomposed further
I‎ n SOCIAL SCIENCES a SOCIAL SUPER-
‎ he BIG BLACK BOX is recursively
T
‎ HE THREE LEVELS ARE SITUATED IN THE
T ‎LEVEL can be proposed, where regular
‎DECOMPOSED INTO LITTLE BLACK BOXES
‎INDIVIDUAL ‎patterns of interactions between
‎all the way down
‎individuals are specified

‎ONTOLOGICAL QUESTION

‎ echanistic philosophers see inter-levels

M I‎ s CAUSES should be SEPARATED FROM &
‎ hat is the relation between
W
‎relations as CONSTITUTIVE and therefore ‎PRECEDE THEIR EFFECTS, then CAUSAL
‎MEREOLOGICAL LEVELS
‎IDENTITY RELATIONS ‎RELATIONS are STRICTLY INTRA-LEVEL

‎ IGHER LEVEL THEORIES are EXPLAINED

H
‎CLASSIC REDUCTIONISM
‎AWAY by LOW LEVEL THEORIES

‎EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTION ‎ IGHER & LOWER LEVEL THEORIES

H
‎NEW-WAVE REDUCTIONISM
‎INSPIRE AND CONSTRAIN EACH OTHER
‎ hat is the relation between the
W
‎SCIENTIFIC THEORIES the four super-levels ‎ ACH SCIENCE CONTRIBUTES in a NON-
E
‎"MOSAIC" UNITY OF THE SCIENCES ‎REDUCTIVE but still INTERDEPENDENT
‎WAY

‎ RANT EACH LEVEL FULL EXPLANATORY

G
‎EXPLANATORY PLURALISM
‎AUTONOMY