Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701931›Full record

ArticleActa biotheoretica2026

Causal Explanation from a Conceptual Engineering Perspective: Non-Reductionism, Precision, and Pluralism.

Jaehyun Lee, Lauren N Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biotheoretica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jaehyun LeeDepartment of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, USA. jaehyun.l@uci.edu.
Lauren N RossDepartment of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, USA.

Funding

John Templeton Foundation Grant #63021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While projects in philosophy of science often focus on similar sorts of topics, there are often massive differences in how philosophers approach them. One approach that has enjoyed significant success-and that is modeled in the work of Wimsatt and others-involves taking a conceptual engineering perspective in analyzing these topics. In this paper, we outline main features of this conceptual engineering approach and use it to advance three emerging claims regarding causal explanation in biology and neuroscience. We suggest that causal explanation in these domains is non-reductive in contrast to always requiring (or improving with) lower-level details, that it is guided by precise explanatory targets in contrast to complete or multidimensional explanatory targets, and that it is pluralist in involving importantly distinct types of causal systems.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesPhilosophyHumansconceptual engineeringexplanationphilosophy of biologyphilosophy of neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID42701931
PMCPMC13547153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.