@article {frans2014mechanistic, title = {Mechanistic Explanation and Explanatory Proofs in Mathematics}, journal = {Philosophia Mathematica}, volume = {22}, number = {2}, year = {2014}, pages = {231{\textendash}248}, abstract = {

Although there is a consensus among philosophers of mathematics and mathematicians that mathematical explanations exist, only a few authors have proposed accounts of explanation in mathematics. These accounts fit into the unificationist or top-down approach to explanation. We argue that these models can be complemented by a bottom-up approach to explanation in mathematics. We introduce the mechanistic model of explanation in science and discuss the possibility of using this model in mathematics, arguing that using it does not presuppose a Platonist view of mathematics and allows one to gain insight into why a theorem is true by answering what-if-things-had-been-different questions.

}, doi = {10.1093/philmat/nku003}, author = {Frans, Joachim and Weber, Erik} } @article {924352, title = {Metaphysical explanatory asymmetries}, journal = {Logique et Analyse}, volume = {53}, number = {211}, year = {2010}, pages = {345{\textendash}365}, abstract = {

The general view is that metaphysical explanation is asymmetric. For instance, if resemblance facts can be explained by facts about their relata, then, by the asymmetry of explanation, these latter facts cannot in turn be explained by the former. The question however is: is there any reason to hold on to the asymmetry? If so, what does it consist in? In the paper we approach these questions by comparing them to analogous questions that have been investigated for scientific explanations. Three main asymmetry criteria have been proposed for the latter: (i) causation, (ii) unification, and (iii) explanatory dependence. We argue that the last criterion, but not the former two, can be of help to metaphysical explanation: metaphysical explanations are asymmetric if the explanatory dependence criterion (in modified format) holds of them.

}, issn = {0024-5836}, author = {Wieland, Jan Willem and Weber, Erik} } @conference {678298, title = {Mathematics through man-computer interaction. A study of the early years of computing.}, booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researcher Days 2008}, year = {2009}, publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e} voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten}, organization = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e} voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten}, isbn = {9789065690432}, author = {De Mol, Liesbeth}, editor = {Weber, Erik and Libert, Thierry and Marage, Pierre and Vanpaemel, Geert} } @incollection {Urbaniak2009a, title = {Modal Logic and Philosophy. {A} case study.}, booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008}, year = {2009}, pages = {79-83}, publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}}, address = {Brussel}, author = {Urbaniak, Rafal and Rostalska, Agnieszka}, editor = {Weber, Erik and Libert, Thierry and Marage, Pierre and Vanpaemel, Geert} } @incollection {340350, title = {Micro-explanations of laws.}, booktitle = {Structures in Scientific Cognition. {E}ssays in Debate with {T}heo {K}uipers}, year = {2005}, pages = {177{\textendash}186}, publisher = {Rodopi}, address = {Amsterdam/New York}, abstract = {

After a brief introduction to Kuipers{\textquoteright} views on explanations of laws we argue that micro-explanations of laws can have two formats: they work either by aggregation and transformation (as Kuipers suggests) or by means of function ascriptions (Kuipers neglects this possibility). We compare both types from an epistemic point of view (which information is needed to construct the explanation?) and from a means-end perspective (do both types serve the same purposes? are they equally good?).

}, isbn = {9042016485}, author = {Weber, Erik and De Preester, Helena} } @incollection {DeMey2004, title = {Mere Logical Possibility: A Bridge too Far}, booktitle = {Modal Epistemology}, year = {2004}, pages = {53-62}, publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}}, author = {De Mey, Tim}, editor = {Weber, Erik and De Mey, Tim} } @book {322175, title = {Modal epistemology.}, year = {2004}, pages = {106 p.}, publisher = {{Koninklijke {V}laamse {A}cademie van {B}elgi{\"e}}, organization = {{Koninklijke {V}laamse {A}cademie van {B}elgi{\"e}}, isbn = {N/A}, editor = {Weber, Erik and De Mey, Tim} } @article {241630, title = {Models of explanation: an evaluation of their fruitfulness}, journal = {COMMUNICATION \& COGNITION : MONOGRAPHIES}, volume = {25}, year = {1992}, pages = {339{\textendash}352}, issn = {0378-0880}, author = {Weber, Erik} }