Project summary According to a mechanistic view of explanation, scientists explain a phenomenon by revealing how it works or came to be. Mechanism is often associated with explanatory monism, which is the view that a phenomenon is best accounted for by a single explanation. If a phenomenon has one causal history or one set of parts, and a mechanistic explanation is a description of that history or those parts, then it seems natural to expect there to be a single correct explanation for a phenomenon. However, biology is rife with explanatory pluralism. There are many biological phenomena that seem to require, multiple explanations. Rather than use this pluralism to characterize biology as less scientific than physics, philosophers of biology have developed systematic accounts of pluralism. None of these philosophical accounts of explanatory pluralism address philosophers' best understanding of mechanistic explanation. This is surprising since most biological explanations are mechanistic. Also, the philosophy of biology and science studies lacks an account of the role that epistemic factors related to pluralism play in the creation of mechanistic explanations of biological phenomena. We need such an account in order to understand explanatory pluralism in the context of mechanistic explanation. This project will use the methods of naturalized philosophy of biology to develop a view of mechanistic explanation, pragmatic mechanism, which takes philosophical accounts of explanatory pluralism in biology seriously. According to pragmatic mechanism it is necessary but not sufficient that a mechanistic explanation be a description of a mechanism. A mechanistic explanation must also reflect the ways that different biological disciplines individuate mechanisms and must be consistent with local traditions of reasoning and experimentation in biological research programs. The PI will write a 9 chapter book of interest to philosophers, historians and sociologists of science, as well as biologists and those interested in considering how explanatory strategies in science affect the retention of women in science and our understanding of female biology. Further, three articles will be written for particular audiences in philosophy, science studies and women's studies. The research for those articles and arguments developed in those articles will be developed in relevant sections of the book. In terms of intellectual merit the project involves a close reading of the biological literature related to the evolution of sexual reproduction, which is a problem of central importance in evolutionary biology. Second, it develops a novel account of pluralism that focuses on interactions of ontological, pragmatic and epistemological factors. Third, this project involves an epistemic and pragmatic analysis of mechanistic explanation, which is primarily studied from an ontological point of view. Pragmatic mechanism advances our understanding of biological pluralism by giving an account of pluralism that is seriously engaged with our strongest theories of mechanistic explanation. This view has implications for our understanding of interdisciplinary research, scientific objectivity and the status of women in science and research into female biology. In terms of broader impact the project integrates research and education by involving an undergraduate research assistant who will take an independent study course and will be used to develop a graduate course, Women in Science. The PI will use this research to develop a graduate minor on women in science that will make connections among faculty studying gender and science in five science and humanities departments. This research will benefit society by providing a set of prescriptions to help us understand and more successfully engage in interdisciplinary research. Further, pragmatic mechanism ameliorates many feminist concerns about mechanistic explanations of women's biology and has the potential to help us conduct scientific research that more directly meets women's needs. Finally, this research broadens opportunities and enables the participation of women in science by developing an understanding of how the social factors involved in scientific reasoning can be developed to better meet the needs of women scientists.

Agency
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Institute
Division of Social and Economic Sciences (SES)
Application #
0450821
Program Officer
Frederick M Kronz
Project Start
Project End
Budget Start
2005-06-01
Budget End
2008-07-31
Support Year
Fiscal Year
2004
Total Cost
$73,351
Indirect Cost
Name
Iowa State University
Department
Type
DUNS #
City
Ames
State
IA
Country
United States
Zip Code
50011