GLENNAN, Stuart (2017): The New Mechanical Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reseña de: GLENNAN, Stuart (2017): The New Mechanical Philosophy. Oxford, Reino Unido: Oxford University Press

Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms

The past two decades have witnessed an increase in interest in social mechanisms and mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena. This paper addresses the question of what the components of social mechanisms in mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena must be. Analytical sociology’s initial position and the main new proposals by analytical sociologists are discussed. It is argued that all of them are faced with outstanding difficulties. Subsequently, a minimal requirement regarding the components of social mechanisms is introduced. It is held that a component of a social mechanism in a mechanistic explanation of a social macro-phenomenon must not have the explanandum phenomenon as a part of it

Mechanisms and Scientific Methodology: Strengths and Weaknesses of the New Mechanical Philosophy

El objetivo de esta tesis es analizar la nueva filosofía mecanicista y discutir sus principales fortalezas y debilidades. La nueva filosofía mecanicista, que surgió entre finales de la década de 1980 y principios de la década de 1990, es tanto una filosofía de la ciencia como una filosofía de la naturaleza. No solo se interesa por la metodología científica, sino también por la constitución y organización del mundo. La tesis se compone de cuatro artículos: “The Search for Generality in the Notion of Mechanism”, “Evolutionary causes as mechanisms: a critical analysis”, “Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms” y “Mechanisms and science denialism: explaining the global lung cancer epidemic”. “The Search for Generality in the Notion of Mechanism” introduce y discute un principio general compartido por los nuevos mecanicistas: la búsqueda de generalidad. Los nuevos mecanicistas están de acuerdo en que una noción de mecanismo satisfactoria ha de ser adecuada para la mayoría de áreas científicas en que los mecanismos son relevantes. El desarrollo de nociones generales de mecanismo es perseguido mediante dos estrategias diferentes y alternativas: la estrategia de extrapolación y la estrategia a-través-de-las-ciencias. Tras analizar ejemplos paradigmáticos de ellas, argumento que ambas estrategias encuentran grandes dificultades y que las posibilidades de superarlas son escasas. Un área en la cual el enfoque mecanicista y la aplicación de nociones generales de mecanismo son especialmente controvertidos es la biología evolutiva. En “Evolutionary causes as mechanisms: a critical analysis”, Victor J. Luque y yo analizamos los actuales acercamientos mecanicistas a la evolución causal, los cuales se centran en la selección natural, y exploramos su validez para las causas evolutivas. Identificamos y caracterizamos tres tipos de enfoques mecanicistas: la visión estocástica, la visión funcional, y la visión minimalista. Sin embargo, tras analizarlos detenidamente, concluimos que ninguno de ellos da cuenta satisfactoriamente de la evolución causal. Dadas las dificultades que enfrentan los enfoques mecanicistas generales, un enfoque específico de área parece recomendable. Este enfoque es adoptado en “Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms”. En este artículo, tomando la práctica de los científicos sociales como principal referencia, abordo la cuestión de cuales han de ser los componentes de los mecanismos sociales en las explicaciones mecanicistas de un macrofenómenos sociales. Discuto tanto la posición inicial de la sociología analítica como propuestas posteriores desarrolladas por sociólogos analíticos. Respecto de todas ellas, muestro que tienen problemas importantes. Posteriormente, planteo un requisito mínimo respecto de los componentes de los mecanismos sociales. Argumento que un componente de un mecanismo social en una explicación mecanicista de un macrofenómeno social no debe tener el fenómeno explanandum como parte. Finalmente, “Mechanisms and science denialism: explaining the global lung cancer epidemic” aborda la relación entre explicación científica y negacionismo de la ciencia. En él, se introduce la noción de “guerra de explicación”. Una guerra de explicación es una situación en la cual la explicación científica estándar de un fenómeno es sistemáticamente negada por un grupo de personas. En el artículo, argumento que la concepción mecanicista de la explicación es de ayuda para lidiar con esta forma de negacionismo de la ciencia. Las explicaciones mecanicistas son resistentes a los argumentos habituales de los negacionistas. El importante papel de las explicaciones mecanicistas es ilustrado con el caso del negacionismo de las enfermedades asociadas al tabaco durante la segunda mitad del siglo veinte.The aim of this dissertation is to analyse the new mechanical philosophy and discuss its main strengths and weaknesses. The new mechanical philosophy, which emerged between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, is both a philosophy of science and a philosophy of nature. It is not only concerned about the scientific methodology, but also about the constitution and organisation of the world. The dissertation is structured in four distinct but complementary papers: “The Search for Generality in the Notion of Mechanism”, “Evolutionary causes as mechanisms: a critical analysis”, “Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms”, and “Mechanisms and science denialism: explaining the global lung cancer epidemic”. “The Search for Generality in the Notion of Mechanism” introduces and discusses a general principle shared by new mechanists: the search for generality. New mechanists agree that an appropriate notion of mechanism must be suitable for most of the fields of science where mechanisms are relevant. The development of general notions of mechanism is pursued with two different and alternative strategies: the extrapolation strategy and the across-the-sciences strategy. After analysing paradigmatic examples of them, I argue that both strategies face outstanding difficulties and that the prospects for overcoming them are dim. A field of science where the mechanical approach and the application of general notions of mechanism are especially controverted is evolutionary biology. In “Evolutionary causes as mechanisms: a critical analysis”, Victor J. Luque and I analyse current mechanical approaches to causal evolution, which mainly focus on natural selection, and explore their validity for evolutionary causes. We identify and characterise three kinds of mechanical approaches: the stochastic view, the functional view, and the minimalist view. Nevertheless, after carefully analysing them, we conclude that any of them can satisfactorily account for causal evolution. Given the difficulties faced by general mechanical approaches, a field-specific approach seems advisable. That approach is adopted in “Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms”. In that paper, taking social scientists’ practice as the main source, I address the question of what the components of social mechanisms in mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena must be. Analytical sociology’s initial position and the main new proposals by analytical sociologists are discussed. It is argued that all of them are faced by outstanding difficulties. Subsequently, a minimal requirement regarding the components of social mechanisms is introduced. It is held that a component of a social mechanism in a mechanistic explanation of a social macro-phenomenon must not have the explanandum as a part of it. Finally, “Mechanisms and science denialism: explaining the global lung cancer epidemic” addresses the relationship between scientific explanation and science denialism. In it, explanatory wars are introduced. An explanatory war is a situation in which the standard scientific explanation of a phenomenon is systematically denied by a group of people. It is argued that the mechanistic account of scientific explanation is helpful in order to face this kind of science denialism. Mechanistic explanations are resistant to the arguments usually raised by denialists. The relevant role of mechanistic explanations is illustrated by the case of tobacco disease denialism during the second half of twentieth century

The Past and Future of Analytic Philosophy in Spain : XX Years of Taller d?Investigació en Filosofia

Introduction to the Special Issue for the XX Years of TIF, ed. by M. Cabrera, J. Gimeno-Simó and S. Pérez-González Introdución al Número Monográfico que conmemora los XX años del TIF, editado por M. Cabrera, J. Gimeno-Simó y S. Pérez-González Introdució al Número Monogràfic que commemora els XX anys del TIF, editat per M. Cabrera, J. Gimeno-Simó i S. Pérez-Gonzále

Assessing the role of evidence of mechanisms in causal extrapolation

Extrapolation of causal claims from study populations to other populations of interest is a problematic issue. The standard approach in experimental research, which prioritises randomized controlled trials and statistical evidence, is not devoid of difficulties. Granted that, it has been defended that evidence of mechanisms is indispensable for causal extrapolation. We argue, contrarily, that this sort of evidence is not indispensable. Nonetheless, we also think that occasionally it may be helpful. In order to clarify its relevance, we introduce a distinction between a positive and a negative role of evidence of mechanisms. Our conclusion is that the former is highly questionable, but the latter may be a trustworthy resource for causal extrapolation

Evidence of biological mechanisms and health predictions: an insight into clinical reasoning

Traditionally, understanding biological mechanisms has had a central role in clinical reasoning. With the raise of the evidence-based paradigm, however, such role has been under debate. On the one hand, evidence of pathophysiological mechanisms has been de-emphasised in clinical guidelines. This is often motivated by the unreliability of our understanding of complex biological mechanisms. On the other hand, evidence of mechanisms has been defended by some scholars as key to clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of evidence of biological mechanisms in two types of clinical predictions: predictions about efficacy and predictions about safety of a certain intervention for the particular patient. Further on, for each type of prediction, we analyse separately two roles that evidence of mechanisms might have, confirming and disconfirming, depending on whether or not it supports that certain epidemiological results apply to the single patient. We argue that the ‘unreliability because of incompleteness’ argument against the emphasis on mechanistic clinical thinking only applies to some of the considered cases. We conclude by offering a model for a more granular view of the role of mechanistic thinking in clinical practice

Evidence of biological mechanisms and health predictions: an insight into clinical reasoning

Traditionally, understanding biological mechanisms has had a central role in clinical reasoning. With the raise of the evidence-based paradigm, however, such role has been under debate. On the one hand, evidence of pathophysiological mechanisms has been de-emphasised in clinical guidelines. This is often motivated by the unreliability of our understanding of complex biological mechanisms. On the other hand, evidence of mechanisms has been defended by some scholars as key to clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of evidence of biological mechanisms in two types of clinical predictions: predictions about efficacy and predictions about safety of a certain intervention for the particular patient. Further on, for each type of prediction, we analyse separately two roles that evidence of mechanisms might have, confirming and disconfirming, depending on whether or not it supports that certain epidemiological results apply to the single patient. We argue that the ‘unreliability because of incompleteness’ argument against the emphasis on mechanistic clinical thinking only applies to some of the considered cases. We conclude by offering a model for a more granular view of the role of mechanistic thinking in clinical practice

Metal-free organocatalysts for high hydrolytic stability single component polyurethane adhesives and their application in decorative insulation facades manufacturing

We focused on developing polyurethane (PU) adhesives with superior ambient thermal and hydrolytic stability, a crucial factor for industrial productivity. Our approach involved creating PU prepolymers that can withstand varying temperatures in ambient conditions. These prepolymers consist of conventional isocyanate-terminated polyurethane and metal-free acid:base organic catalysts, with the stability of the adhesive relying on the organocatalyst employed. We tested a series of 11 latent organocatalysts derived from the reaction between 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU) and various acids. Among these, the catalyst based on 1-naphthoic acid exhibited exceptional stability, lasting at least 3 h at 60 ◦C and an average relative humidity of 65% under vigorous stirring. We assessed this stability using a fan-based stirrer and analyzed the curing conditions kinetically through DSC. Furthermore, our adhesive formulation is environmentally friendly as it is free of metals, specifically tin (typically present in catalysts such as dibutyltin dilaurate). This quality enhances its sustainability. To validate the practical applicability of the adhesives, we conducted tests using decorative facade models composed of siliciclastic sandstone extracted from a quarry in Vilviestre del Pinar (Burgos, Spain. Latitude: 41.951024◦N, longitude: 3.078283◦W) and extruded polystyrene (XPS). The results demonstrated the excellent hydrolytic and thermal stability of the adhesives, highlighting their significant potential for panel manufacturing in this context.This work was supported by the Regional Government of Castilla y León (Junta de Castilla y León) and by the Ministry of Science and Innovation MICIN and the European Union NextGeneration EU PRTR. Author José Miguel García received grant PID2020-113264RB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”. Author Miriam Trigo-López received grant PID2019-108583RJ-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. Author Saul Vallejos received grant BG22/00086 funded by Spanish Ministerio de Universidades

Ranking de ciudades latinoamericanas para la atracción de inversiones INAI 2010

El Centro de Pensamiento en Estrategias Competitivas (CEPEC) de la Universidad del Rosario de Colombia y la firma chilena Inteligencia de Negocios (IdN), se complacen en presentar el Ranking de las 48 ciudades más atractivas en América Latina para la atracción de inversiones, producto de una alianza estratégica para identificar cuáles son las ciudades de la región que reúnen las mejores condiciones para captar inversiones