The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Explanation Beyond Causation
Abstract
Explanations are very important to us in many contexts: in science, mathematics, philosophy, and also in everyday and juridical contexts. But what is an explanation? In the philosophical study of explanation, there is long-standing, influential tradition that links explanation intimately to causation: we often explain by providing accurate information about the causes of the phenomenon to be explained. Such causal accounts have been the received view of the nature of explanation, particularly in philosophy of science, since the 1980s. However, philosophers have recently begun to break with this causal tradition by shifting their focus to kinds of explanation that do not turn on causal information. The increasing recognition of the importance of such non-causal explanations in the sciences and elsewhere raises pressing questions for philosophers of explanation. What is the nature of non-causal explanations—and which theory best captures it? How do non-causal explanations relate to causal ones? How are non-causal explanations in the sciences related to those in mathematics and metaphysics? This volume of new essays explores answers to these and other questions at the heart of contemporary philosophy of explanation. The essays address these questions from a variety of perspectives, including general accounts of non-causal and causal explanations, as well as a wide range of detailed case studies of non-causal explanations from the sciences, mathematics and metaphysics.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“or explained by contrastive patterns between the given data example and that of an opposing class in one iteration [130], [144] or a series thereof [49]”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [130]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620970586 · Cited by 475
Stepin, I., Alonso, J. M., Catala, A., & Pereira-Farina, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3051315 · Cited by 376
Explanation in Computational Neuroscience: Causal and Non-causal
Chirimuuta, M. (2016) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axw034 · Cited by 119
Explanation beyond causation? New directions in the philosophy of scientific explanation
Reutlinger, A. (2017) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12395 · Cited by 87
Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts
Bordt, S., Finck, M., Raidl, E., & von Luxburg, U. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533153 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Venue
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2018-06-21
- OpenAlex
- W2604760132
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 29.35
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- philosophy of explanation, non-causal explanation, causal explanation, nature of explanation, scientific explanation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review