Explanation and Intervention in Coupled Human and Natural Systems
“Coupled human and natural systems” (CHANS) has emerged within the last two decades as a designation for interdisciplinary research focused on complex interactions between human activities and ecosystems. I examine CHANS from a manipulation approach to ex
- PDF / 260,063 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 439.36 x 666.15 pts Page_size
- 45 Downloads / 153 Views
Explanation and Intervention in Coupled Human and Natural Systems Daniel Steel
Abstract “Coupled human and natural systems” (CHANS) has emerged within the last two decades as a designation for interdisciplinary research focused on complex interactions between human activities and ecosystems. I examine CHANS from a manipulation approach to explanation advocated by Jim Woodward, according to which causal generalizations are distinguished by being invariant under interventions. Several philosophers object that causal generalizations about complex social and biological systems, such as CHANS, often fail to be invariant. This chapter develops the concept of a robust intervention to answer this objection, where an intervention is robust to the extent that its ability to promote the intended result is insensitive to errors in the causal model. However, this necessitates rethinking the concept of intervention used by Woodward. Whereas Woodward’s concept requires that interventions be exogenous, robust interventions are often non-exogenous insofar as involving a sequence of actions wherein later choices are conditional on the results of prior ones. I explain how robust interventions are related to adaptive policies, often discussed in relation to CHANS. Keywords Explanation • Intervention • Invariance • Coupled-human systems • Natural systems
15.1 Introduction The label “coupled human and natural systems” (CHANS) has emerged within the last two decades as a designation for interdisciplinary research focused on complex interactions between human activities and natural systems such as the D. Steel () Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, 503 S Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1032, USA e-mail: [email protected] M.I. Kaiser et al. (eds.), Explanation in the Special Sciences: The Case of Biology and History, Synthese Library 367, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7563-3__15, © Springer ScienceCBusiness Media Dordrecht 2014
325
326
D. Steel
climate, forests, oceans, and rivers (Liu et al. 2007a, b). This chapter focuses on a case study of CHANS research, namely, explanations of forest degradation in the Wolong Panda Reserve in China (hereafter, Wolong). I consider this case in connection with Jim Woodward’s (2003) theory of causal explanation, according to which explanatory generalizations are distinguished by being invariant under interventions. Woodward’s approach appears initially promising in relation to this case given the emphasis placed in his theory on the connection between explanation and intervention. Unsurprisingly, explanations of forest degradation in Wolong are explicitly intended to assist the design of more effective habitat conservation policies. However, it is unclear whether explanatory models developed by these researchers satisfy Woodward’s requirements for an invariant generalization. Indeed, the CHANS literature consistently emphasizes the potential for “surprises,” that is, outcomes that differ significantly from what would have been expected on the basis of a seemingly well-confirmed explanat
Data Loading...
