@article{124076,
  author = {Thomas Blanchard and Nadya Vasilyeva and Tania Lombrozo},
  title = {Stability, breadth and guidance},
  abstract = {<p>Much recent work on explanation in the interventionist tradition emphasizes the explanatory value of\&nbsp;<em>stable</em>\&nbsp;causal generalizations{\textemdash}i.e., causal generalizations that remain true in a wide range of background circumstances. We argue that two separate explanatory virtues are lumped together under the heading of {\textquoteleft}stability{\textquoteright}. We call these two virtues\&nbsp;<em>breadth</em>\&nbsp;and\&nbsp;<em>guidance</em>respectively. In our view, these two virtues are importantly distinct, but this fact is neglected or at least under-appreciated in the literature on stability. We argue that an adequate theory of explanatory goodness should recognize breadth and guidance as distinct virtues, as breadth and guidance track different ideals of explanation, satisfy different cognitive and pragmatic ends, and play different theoretical roles in (for example) helping us understand the explanatory value of mechanisms. Thus keeping track of the distinction between these two forms of stability yields a more accurate and perspicuous picture of the role that stability considerations play in explanation.</p>
},
  year = {2018},
  journal = {Philosophical Studies},
  volume = {175},
  pages = {2263{\textendash}2283},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0958-6},
  language = {eng},
}