Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Humanas, Departamento de Filosofia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, 2013. / Submitted by Ana Cristina Barbosa da Silva (annabds@hotmail.com) on 2014-10-27T16:23:01Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_AnaLuisaLamounierCosta.pdf: 425710 bytes, checksum: be248a2ea2eb5ab8d331fa869818432b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Tania Milca Carvalho Malheiros(tania@bce.unb.br) on 2014-10-29T11:26:24Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_AnaLuisaLamounierCosta.pdf: 425710 bytes, checksum: be248a2ea2eb5ab8d331fa869818432b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-10-29T11:26:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_AnaLuisaLamounierCosta.pdf: 425710 bytes, checksum: be248a2ea2eb5ab8d331fa869818432b (MD5) / A neurociencia como uma ciencia autonoma consolidou-se a partir de pouco antesda metade do seculo XX. Ela inclui conhecimentos provenientes de muitas areasdiferentes, incluindo a bioquimica, a biologia molecular, neurofisiologia, a ciencia dacomputacao e a psicologia comportamental. Os seus objetivos, problemas e a forma deelaborar explicacoes sao distintos das outras areas da biologia e das ciencias biomedicas.Um modelo de explicacao para a neurociencia precisa estar preparado para lidar com essasquestoes. A mais expressiva abordagem explicativa para a neurociencia, atualmente, e omodelo mecanistico-causal elaborado por Carl Craver em 2007. Segundo essa abordagem,explicacoes em neurociencia descrevem mecanismos, ou seja, como partes se organizam einteragem para produzir um fenomeno. Essas partes pertencem a varios niveis decomposicao e relacionam-se causalmente umas com as outras. Alem disso, a neurociencia eunificada quando cientistas das diversas areas que a compoem trabalham juntos paraelaborar mecanismos. Esse modelo foi extensamente discutido nos ultimos anos, tendosido levantadas diversas criticas contra eles. Algumas delas sao pertinentes e sugerem queele sofra alguns ajustes. Ainda assim, ele sobrevive como o mais robusto modelo paraexplicacoes em neurociencia existente. Esse trabalho apresenta-se como um estudo dessemodelo, bem como das criticas feitas a ele. ______________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT / Neuroscience as an independent science was consolidated hardly before the firsthalf of the twentieth century. It encloses knowledge from many different areas, includingbiochemistry, molecular biology, neurophysiology, computer science and behavioralpsychology. Its purposes, its problems and how its explanations are formulated are distinctfrom other areas of biology and biomedical sciences. An explanatory model forneuroscience has to be prepared to deal with these questions. The most expressive accountof explanations in neuroscience is currently the causal-mechanistic model formulated byCarl Craver in 2007. According to him, explanations in neuroscience describe mechanisms,in other words, it points out how parts organize themselves and interact to engender thephenomenon. These parts belong to various levels of composition and are causally relatedto one another. Furthermore, neuroscience is unified when scientists from different areasthat compose it work together to develop mechanisms. This model was extensivelydiscussed in the last years and several criticisms were raised towards it. Some of them arerelevant and suggest some adjustments. Still, it remais as the soundest model forexplanations in neuroscience nowadays. This work is presented as a review of this model,as well as the critiques worked out against it.