Many philosophers and scientists now view the discovery of causal mechanisms as central to research and explanation. In this paper, we consider the relevance of this mechanistic approach to human ecology. The consensus is that mechanisms are relatively stable and recurring causal structures underlying the phenomena we are trying to understand or explain. A causal sequence with a particular end point can be understood as constituting a causal history explanation, but claims for it also constituting a mechanism require additional evidence concerning its stability and regularity. Organizing research around the search for mechanisms often makes sense in fields like biology, sociology, and political science where stable causal structures are commonplace. But it makes less sense for human ecology because interactions between people and the environment are often characterized by unstable and contingent causal dynamics. The more serviceable concept of cause, not causal mechanism, should thus be maintained at the core of explanation, and research in human ecology should prioritize the search for causal histories, with causal mechanisms serving a potentially supporting role. These arguments are illustrated with a case study of land use change and reforestation in the Caribbean.

中文翻译：

---

机制和因果历史：人类生态学中以解释为导向的研究

许多哲学家和科学家现在将因果机制的发现视为研究和解释的核心。在本文中，我们考虑了这种机械方法与人类生态学的相关性。共识是机制是我们试图理解或解释的现象背后的相对稳定和反复出现的因果结构。具有特定终点的因果序列可以理解为构成因果历史解释，但声称它也构成机制需要关于其稳定性和规律性的额外证据。在生物学、社会学和政治学等领域，稳定的因果结构很常见，围绕寻找机制组织研究通常是有意义的。但它对人类生态学意义不大，因为人与环境之间的相互作用通常以不稳定和偶然的因果动态为特征。因此，更有用的原因概念，而不是因果机制，应该保持在解释的核心，人类生态学的研究应该优先寻找因果历史，因果机制起到潜在的支持作用。以加勒比地区土地利用变化和重新造林的案例研究来说明这些论点。