{"title":"生态机制研究与建模","authors":"Andrew D. Wilson","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2022.2050912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A recent philosophical literature has developed a taxonomy of scientific explanations, models, and the two basic research programmes that produce them. The first programme takes some capacity of a system and maps out how it works by breaking it down into various sub-capacities, each with their own distinct characteristics. The end goal is a functional model, a ‘how-possibly’ box-and-arrow type map of the functional organisation of the capacity. The second programme instead focuses on analytically decomposing a proposed mechanism that produces a phenomenon into real parts and processes. The end goal is a dynamical mechanistic model, a ‘how-actually’ explanation in which each model part explicitly represents the dynamics of those real parts or processes. Mechanistic models are better explanations of phenomena. Ecological psychology has, so far, widely resisted becoming a mechanistic science. This is in part due to our objections to mechanistic, Cartesian ontologies, and more recently because it’s not clear we can meaningfully decompose the systems we study in order to develop such models. I will argue here that both of these concerns are unfounded, that ecological psychology is actually perfectly capable of developing mechanistic models, and that therefore we should do so, in order to gain the benefits.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"34 1","pages":"48 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological Mechanistic Research and Modelling\",\"authors\":\"Andrew D. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10407413.2022.2050912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A recent philosophical literature has developed a taxonomy of scientific explanations, models, and the two basic research programmes that produce them. The first programme takes some capacity of a system and maps out how it works by breaking it down into various sub-capacities, each with their own distinct characteristics. The end goal is a functional model, a ‘how-possibly’ box-and-arrow type map of the functional organisation of the capacity. The second programme instead focuses on analytically decomposing a proposed mechanism that produces a phenomenon into real parts and processes. The end goal is a dynamical mechanistic model, a ‘how-actually’ explanation in which each model part explicitly represents the dynamics of those real parts or processes. Mechanistic models are better explanations of phenomena. Ecological psychology has, so far, widely resisted becoming a mechanistic science. This is in part due to our objections to mechanistic, Cartesian ontologies, and more recently because it’s not clear we can meaningfully decompose the systems we study in order to develop such models. I will argue here that both of these concerns are unfounded, that ecological psychology is actually perfectly capable of developing mechanistic models, and that therefore we should do so, in order to gain the benefits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"48 - 70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2022.2050912\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2022.2050912","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract A recent philosophical literature has developed a taxonomy of scientific explanations, models, and the two basic research programmes that produce them. The first programme takes some capacity of a system and maps out how it works by breaking it down into various sub-capacities, each with their own distinct characteristics. The end goal is a functional model, a ‘how-possibly’ box-and-arrow type map of the functional organisation of the capacity. The second programme instead focuses on analytically decomposing a proposed mechanism that produces a phenomenon into real parts and processes. The end goal is a dynamical mechanistic model, a ‘how-actually’ explanation in which each model part explicitly represents the dynamics of those real parts or processes. Mechanistic models are better explanations of phenomena. Ecological psychology has, so far, widely resisted becoming a mechanistic science. This is in part due to our objections to mechanistic, Cartesian ontologies, and more recently because it’s not clear we can meaningfully decompose the systems we study in order to develop such models. I will argue here that both of these concerns are unfounded, that ecological psychology is actually perfectly capable of developing mechanistic models, and that therefore we should do so, in order to gain the benefits.
期刊介绍:
This unique journal publishes original articles that contribute to the understanding of psychological and behavioral processes as they occur within the ecological constraints of animal-environment systems. It focuses on problems of perception, action, cognition, communication, learning, development, and evolution in all species, to the extent that those problems derive from a consideration of whole animal-environment systems, rather than animals or their environments in isolation from each other. Significant contributions may come from such diverse fields as human experimental psychology, developmental/social psychology, animal behavior, human factors, fine arts, communication, computer science, philosophy, physical education and therapy, speech and hearing, and vision research.