Personal explanations do not cite mechanisms.1 This is relevant because personal explanations are legitimate.
Fundamental entities (e.g. quarks) behave without mechanisms.
• …Infinite regresses of explanation can't exist.
• …Examples exist: electrons, space, God.
This is relevant because features and behaviors of fundamental entities can still have an explanation.
Salmon's causal-mechanical account of scientific explanation is true. This is relevant because this account requires all explanations to be spatio-temporal.
No, the causal-mechanical account is not true;…
• …the account misses property-relations and magnitudes.
• …mark transferability in the account can be explanatorily irrelevant.
• …causal etiologies need not be spatio-temporal.1
James Woodward: “How exactly does the causal mechanical model avoid the (disastrous) conclusion that any successful explanation of the behavior of the gas must trace the trajectories of individual molecules?” [“Scientific Explanation”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]False positives
James Woodward: “For example, while the detailed description of the individual causal processes involved in the operation of the market for oranges presumably will describe whether individual consumers purchase oranges by cash, check, or credit card, whether information about the freeze is communicated by telephone or email, and so on, all of this is to a first approximation irrelevant to the equilibrium price—given the supply and demand curves, the equilibrium price will be the same as long as there is a market in which consumers are able to purchase oranges by some means, information about the freeze and about prices is available to buyers and sellers in some form, and so on.” [“Scientific Explanation”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]