Abstract

Carl Craver proposes a mechanistic model of explanation in science motivated by a desire to intervene, as exemplified by explanations in neuroscience which in his opinion are motivated by the desire to bring the central nervous system under control. In his discussion of causal relevancy conditions of mechanistic components Craver asserts that a cause need not make its effect probable in order to explain it . Although this is supported by some interpretations, Craver’s own is highlighted by his appeal to an example in neuroscience of the apparently stochastic nature of neurotransmitter release events. I propose the view that this interpretation of such a causal relevancy condition is contradictory to Craver’s own proposed first norm of explanation : that a good explanation must fully account for the explanandum phenomenon including varied manifestations of the phenomenon. By defending Craver’s explanatory motivation of intervention I demonstrate that the attributed cause of a phenomenon must necessarily make the phenomenon probable in order to effectively explain it.