Sentence examples for Craver from high-quality English sources.

• (Craver 2007: 189)

• The 26-year-old in North Carolina was diagnosed with COVID-19 in May 2020, and subsequently suffered a stroke that led to bleeding in her brain and blood clots in her heart that caused the cardiac arrest, the Winston-Salem Journal's Richard Craver reported.

• Craver 2007: 182–183).

• Craver 2012, Garson 2013).

• This is how Craver puts it:

• ., Machamer, Darden, & Craver 2000).

• Darden and Craver also discuss experimental strategies for learning how a mechanism works.

• ., Wimsatt 1974, Machamer, Darden and Craver 2000, Glennan 2005, Bechtel 2006, Craver 2007a).

Use Craver in a sentence.

• Craver (2007b) contends that this is not a causal relation because the relata cannot be viewed as distinct and non-overlapping.

• This kind of multilevel pluralism is also defended by the supporters of the New Mechanism (Bechtel 2008; Craver 2005, 2007; Brigandt 2010: 297).

• Salmon (1984) describes them as two different ways of situating an explanandum phenomenon in the causal nexus (see also Craver 2001b; Glennan 2009).

• Many mechanists emphasize the hierarchical organization of mechanisms and the multilevel structure of theories in the special sciences (see especially Craver 2007, Ch. 5).

• For instance, Craver (2002) accepts both the Syntactic and Semantic Views, which he humorously and not inaccurately calls “the Once Received View” and the “Model Model View.”

• Craver (2006) responds that the explanatory force of Hodgkin and Huxley’s model, in fact, requires a grasp of the distinctly biological properties of ion channels, which properties were black-boxed in Hodgkin and Huxley’s total current equation (see also Craver 2007; Bogen 2008b; Weber 2008).

• Thus, suffice it to say that some philosophers, like Craver, reject a reductionist interpretation of mechanistic explanation (Craver 2007), whereas others seem to suggest that a conservative form of reductionism may be compatible with mechanistic explanation (Bechtel 2007 and, especially, Schaffner 2006).

• One solution to this problem would be to connect reductive explanation to mechanistic explanation, even though mechanistic explanation is often described by its proponents as non-reductivist in spirit (Kauffmann 1970; Cummins 1975, 1983, 2000; Bechtel & Richardson 1993; Bechtel 1994; Glennan 1996; Machamer et al. 2000; Craver 2005, 2007).

Craver sentence examples

• This view has been variously baptized as the Received View (Putnam 1962; Hempel 1970), the Syntactic Approach (van Fraassen 1970, 1989), the Syntactic View (Wessels 1976), the Standard Conception (Hempel 1970), the Orthodox View (Feigl 1970), the Statement View (Moulines 1976, 2002; Stegmüller 1976), the Axiomatic Approach (van Fraassen 1989), and the Once Received View (Craver 2002).

• This view of natural kinds has been deployed to argue for taxonomic revision in, for example, the biology of human emotion (Griffiths 1997), the structure of concepts (Machery 2009), and the taxonomy of psychiatry (Kendler, Zachar, and Craver 2010; see Craver 2009): a putatively single kind is split into multiple kinds because it is discovered that distinct properties in a property cluster are explained by distinct mechanisms.

• The authors would like to acknowledge detailed editorial feedback from SEP editors and reviewers for suggestions that led to improvements to this article, and to the following people who provided useful early feedback on what the article should cover: Fred Adams, Mike Anderson, Matt Barker, Paul Bloom, Andy Clark, Carl Craver, Terry Horgan, Edouard Machery, Bob McCauley, Alva Noé, Nico Orlandi, Tom Polger, Phil Robbins, Rob Rupert, and Larry Shapiro.

• We would like to thank Alexander Bird, Carl Craver, Matthias Hösch, Beate Krickel, Meinard Kuhlmann, Marc Lange, Chrysostomos Mantzavinos, Margaret Schabas, Markus Schrenk, Rudolf Schüssler, Wolfgang Spohn, Michael Strevens, Emma Tobin, the members of our DFG research group (Causation, Laws, Dispositions, and Explanations at the Intersection of Science and Metaphysics), and an anonymous referee for helpful comments that greatly improved our manuscript.