The mechanistic model depicts scientific explanations as involving the discovery of multi-level, organized components that constitute a target phenomenon. Meanwhile, sensorimotor enactivism purports to offer a scientifically informed account of perceptual experience as a skill-laden interactive relationship, constitutively involving both perceiver and world, rather than as an agent-bound representation of the world. Insofar as sensorimotor enactivism identifies an empirically tractable phenomenon – skillful agent-world interaction – and mechanistic explanation establishes the subpersonal components of this phenomenon, the two approaches allow for (...) a fruitful division of labor in investigating perceptual experience. On closer inspection, however, two challenges arise. First, the “representation challenge” arises because promising attempts to set out implementational details of our sensorimotor interaction with the world implicate cognitive representations, creating tension with sensorimotor enactivism’s nonrepresentational commitments. Second, the “reconstitution challenge” arises when mechanistic explanation not only uncovers the components of some established phenomenon but plays a role in “reconstituting” this phenomenon. This means that, through investigating mechanisms, perceptual experience may be reconceived such that its constituents are wholly organism-bound. We explore both challenges to the compatibility of mechanism and sensorimotor enactivism and examine possible solutions. The result is a clearer understanding of the tensions and opportunities for learning between the frameworks. (shrink)

A model is proposed to explain how emotional and cognitive processes drive epistemic activities within individual scientists. In this account, emotion–cognition interactions produce cyclical phases of accommodative and assimilative epistemic activities, called thought experiments and empirical experiments, respectively. During thought experiments, scientists ruminate over troubling anomalies in order to generate the theoretical ingredients necessary for constructing new conjectures. During empirical experiments, scientists explore exciting conjectures in order to cover the empirical ground necessary to discover new anomalies. Critically, epistemic activities are (...) accompanied and sustained by positive and negative emotional moods. The main virtue of the model is its specification of a coupled feedback mechanism that explains the dynamics and the temporal dependencies between empirical and theoretical activities underlying scientific discovery. (shrink)