Mechanistic Abstraction (original) (raw)

We provide an explicit taxonomy of legitimate kinds of abstraction within constitutive explanation. We argue that abstraction is an inherent aspect of adequate mechanistic explanation. Mechanistic explanations—even ideally complete ones—typically involve many kinds of abstraction and do not require maximal detail. Some kinds of abstraction play the ontic role of identifying the specific complex components, subsets of causal powers, and organizational relations—among the many present within a mechanism—which produce a suitably general phenomenon. Therefore, abstract constitutive explanations are both legitimate and mechanistic. Thus, we reject the requirement of maximal detail, namely, the requirement that an ideally complete mechanistic explanation must include as many details as possible.