What’s the Point of State-of-Nature Models?

Abstract: Practical explanations are tools which aim to clarify the evolution and function of our conceptual practices. There is current discussion about how we ought to construct and interpret practical explanations, and more specifically if state-of-nature models are useful when doing this. Model-based explanations utilize and argue in favor of state-of-nature models; paradigm-based explanations on the other hand, do not. Further contention concerns firstly whether state-of-nature models are best understood as fictional or historical representations, secondly if they reveal some fundamental basic function of a conceptual practice, what Queloz calls the actualist interpretation, or simply a part of it that is equal to other functions of that practice, which in turn he calls the dynamic interpretation (Queloz 2019 697-698). In this essay, I will argue for the utility of state-of-nature models when constructing practical explanations for conceptual practices, in alignment with Queloz's dynamic interpretation of pragmatic genealogies. In opposition stands an alternative but related framework, namely the paradigm-based explanations, which diverge significantly from Queloz's pragmatic genealogy, and dismiss the use of state-of-nature models as redundant (Fricker 2019 243). In what follows, I will address the reasons behind this divergence and present an argument put forth by Mathieu Queloz in favor of the relevance of state-of-nature models in practical explanations, as well as an argument of my own, directed toward what I perceive to be an inherent flaw in paradigm- based explanations. Since the term ‘practical explanations’ might be unfamiliar to some readers, section 1 of this essay covers its meaning and the method it denotes. Here, I also define terms that might be new for the uninitiated. Further, section 1 includes a motivation for the subject broadly, which seems appropriate, since the discussions and issues it covers are difficult to place in the analytic/continental divide. Section 2 gives a brief but informative summary of the two methods of practical explanation that this essay revolves around, laying the foundation for section 3, which explores in detail the current discussion between these two methods; their points of divergence and contention, and the arguments that have been presented, ending with an intermediary conclusion. In section 4 I present my own argument against paradigm-based explanations, which if successful will have revealed a weakness perhaps worth some attention. Section 5 concludes this essay, and at the very end I offer a brief thought on a way to further strengthen pragmatic genealogies.