IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v46y2017i4p715-738.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ratio via Machina: Three Standards of Mechanistic Explanation in Sociology

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie B. Aviles
  • Isaac Ariail Reed

Abstract

Recently, sociologists have expended much effort in attempts to define social mechanisms. We intervene in these debates by proposing that sociologists in fact have a choice to make between three standards of what constitutes a good mechanistic explanation: substantial, formal, and metaphorical mechanistic explanation. All three standards are active in the field, and we suggest that a more complete theory of mechanistic explanation in sociology must parse these three approaches to draw out the implicit evaluative criteria appropriate to each. Doing so will reveal quite different preferences for explanatory scope and nuance hidden under the ubiquitous term “social mechanism.†Finally, moving beyond extensive debates about realism and antirealism, we argue prescriptively against “mechanistic fundamentalism†for sociology and advocate for a more pluralistic understanding of social causality.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie B. Aviles & Isaac Ariail Reed, 2017. "Ratio via Machina: Three Standards of Mechanistic Explanation in Sociology," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 715-738, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:715-738
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124115610350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124115610350
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124115610350?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521643368, October.
    2. Cartwright,Nancy, 1999. "The Dappled World," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644112, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Julian Reiss, 2001. "Natural economic quantities and their measurement," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-311.
    3. Aumann, Craig A., 2007. "A methodology for developing simulation models of complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 385-396.
    4. Florian Ellsaesser & Eric W. K. Tsang & Jochen Runde, 2014. "Models of causal inference: Imperfect but applicable is better than perfect but inapplicable," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(10), pages 1541-1551, October.
    5. Stephen Pratten, 2007. "Realism, closed systems and abstraction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 473-497.
    6. Kinouchi, Renato, 2018. "Philosophical issues related to risks and values," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    8. Peter C. B. Phillips, 2003. "Laws and Limits of Econometrics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages 26-52, March.
    9. Midgley, Gerald, 2008. "Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.:: The unification of systems thinking: Is there gold at the end of the rainbow?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 317-321, August.
    10. Nicolas Brisset, 2018. "Models as speech acts: the telling case of financial models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 21-41, January.
    11. Toby Ord & Rafaela Hillerbrand & Anders Sandberg, 2010. "Probing the improbable: methodological challenges for risks with low probabilities and high stakes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 191-205, March.
    12. Enzo Lenine, 2020. "Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Simon Hall & Nilufa Ali & Nick Chater & Mike Oaksford, 2016. "Discounting and Augmentation in Causal Conditional Reasoning: Causal Models or Shallow Encoding?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Paul Shaffer, 2018. "Causal pluralism and mixed methods in the analysis of poverty dynamics," WIDER Working Paper Series 115, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Freese, Jeremy & Peterson, David, 2017. "Replication in Social Science," SocArXiv 5bck9, Center for Open Science.
    16. Catherine Laurent & Jacques Baudry & Marielle Berriet-Solliec & Marc Kirsch & Daniel Perraud & Bruno Tinel & Aurélie Trouvé & Nicky Allsopp & Patrick Bonnafous & Françoise Burel & Maria José Carneiro , 2009. "Pourquoi s'intéresser à la notion d' « evidence-based policy » ?," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(4), pages 853-873.
    17. Javier Guillermo Gómez P., 2008. ""El crecimiento económico y la supervivencia": el caso de las matemáticas y la economía," Borradores de Economia 498, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    18. Sang Yi, 2002. "The nature of model-based understanding in condensed matter physics," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 3(1), pages 81-91, March.
    19. Polly Mitchell & Anna Alexandrova, 2021. "Well-Being and Pluralism," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2411-2433, August.
    20. Theodore G. Shepherd & Elisabeth A. Lloyd, 2021. "Meaningful climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-16, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:715-738. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.