Podcast Summary
Podcast: New Books Network
Episode: Philippe Huneman, "Why?: The Philosophy Behind the Question"
Host: Morteza Hajizadeh
Guest: Dr. Philippe Huneman
Release Date: December 29, 2025
Episode Overview
This episode features a deep dive into Dr. Philippe Huneman’s book, Why?: The Philosophy Behind the Question (Stanford UP, 2023), originally written in French and translated by Adam Hocker. Dr. Huneman, a research director at the Institute of History of Philosophy, Sciences, and Technology in Paris, discusses the philosophical complexities behind the ubiquitous question "why?", exploring its meaning in science, human action, biological function, history, and conspiracy theories. The host and guest engage in a detailed philosophical conversation, peppered with accessible examples, that bridges Huneman’s specialist work in philosophy of science and evolutionary biology with broader existential questions.
Dr. Philippe Huneman’s Background and Book Origins
[02:21–08:56]
- Dr. Huneman introduces himself as a philosopher of science with a background in mathematics, philosophy, and a focus on the philosophy of biology, especially evolutionary biology and ecology.
- The book is a synthesis of years of specialized academic research, aiming to connect insights from biology, mathematics, language, action, and metaphysics into a big-picture philosophical exploration of what constitutes a "reason why."
“This book is about trying to sketch the big picture ... to venture myself into the big picture and try to make sense of it.” — Philippe Huneman [07:48]
Structure of the Book
[08:56–09:57]
- The book is divided into three main parts: Grammar, Fusions, and Limits, with each of its nine chapters beginning with a “why” question, ranging from scientific explanation to animal purpose, historical causes, and conspiracy theories.
Scientific Explanation: Deduction, Induction, and Causation
[09:57–22:31]
- The discussion covers the nature of scientific explanation:
- Deduction: Deriving conclusions guaranteed by premises (e.g., logical certainty).
- Induction: Generalizing from specific cases, which always carries the risk of error (exemplified by “all swans are white”).
- Causal Explanation: The role of causation and its superiority in certain explanatory contexts.
- Karl Hempel’s Deductive-Nomological Model: Explained as deducing phenomena from laws and known facts, but criticized for missing the asymmetry of explanation (i.e., explaining the shadow of a flagpole versus explaining the flagpole by its shadow).
- Wesley Salmon’s Contribution: Explanations should be asymmetric and rooted in causation, not just logic.
“Explanation should be asymmetric... What makes an explanation explanatory is a reference to causation.” — Philippe Huneman [19:52]
Key Segment
- [19:00–22:31]: Asymmetric explanation and the importance of causal models in science.
Beyond Causation: Mathematical and Structural Explanations
[22:39–31:11]
- Graph Theory & Networks: Huneman stresses that not all scientific explanations are causal; some are topological or structural, especially in network science.
- Example: The robustness of ecological networks is a product of their mathematical structure (scale-free networks), not the specific biological details.
"If you want to explain the robustness of an ecosystem, I will answer it's the scale-free nature of the network, and this is a mathematical fact, it's not a causal process." — Philippe Huneman [30:09]
Reasons for Action: Human Rationality
[31:11–40:55]
- Chapter: "Why did Mickey Mouse Open the Fridge?":
- Explores how we perceive and attribute reasons for actions (desires, beliefs), even to cartoon characters or animals.
- Key distinction: Having a reason to act (instrumental rationality) vs. having a good or moral reason to act.
- Example: Having a mistaken belief can lead to rational action, even if the reason is not "good" in a moral or factual sense.
“Explaining what people do is trying to find out the reasons why they act the way they do. But justifying what they do is trying to show those reasons are good reasons. And it's different.”
— Philippe Huneman [33:40]
Purpose and Function in Biology (Non-Human Life)
[41:24–54:09]
- Biological explanations often invoke purpose or function (e.g., "The chameleon changes color to escape predators"), which seems at odds with the mechanistic, non-teleological nature of modern science.
- Darwinian Solution: Natural selection legitimizes functional and purposive language without invoking supernatural goals; functions are explained via evolutionary advantage.
- Hierarchical Functions: Functions at the level of organs (claws), behavior (hunting), and survival are nested in evolutionary terms.
- Challenge: At the level of "life itself," the notion of purpose breaks down because the category "life" is too unstable for meaningful functional ascription.
”The function of the claws is catching prey... I am saying that catching prey is what made the claws selected by natural selection because it gave a reproductive and survival advantage to the wolves that had claws.” — Philippe Huneman [48:54]
Key Segment
- [44:44–54:09]: Detailed argument for purposive statements in biology via natural selection rather than "vital forces" or divine design.
Purpose of Life: Philosophical Limitations
[54:18–59:36]
- Philosophers and biologists struggle to define 'life' tightly enough to answer if life as such has a "purpose."
- Any functional or purposive explanation for life itself (as opposed to parts or processes within it) falls apart due to definitional instability.
“The question about the purpose of life... I tend to think that the question doesn’t really make sense actually.” — Philippe Huneman [58:17]
Explaining Historical Events: Causes, Triggers, and Modal Realism
[59:36–70:47]
- Case Study: Why Did World War I Happen?
- Triggers vs. Structural Causes: The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered the war, but the European alliance system made a similar conflict virtually inevitable.
- David Lewis’s Modal Realism: Understanding necessity and causality in terms of possible worlds; an event is necessary if it occurs in all close possible worlds; causal explanations often involve considering what would have happened in relevant counterfactual worlds.
"Causation for the causal statements are about what would happen in worlds like ours, except regarding the thing A that I’m saying it’s the cause of B." — Philippe Huneman [66:14]
Conspiracy Theories: Philosophy, Psychology, and the Need for Meaning
[70:47–83:50]
- Conspiracy theories result from conflating types of explanations: interpreting impersonal or accidental events as outcomes of intentional (usually malevolent) agency.
- The allure of conspiracy: arises when established orders (social or political) break down and people seek meaning or intention behind chaos.
- The concept of "chance" itself is unstable—equally refers to lack of intention and to equiprobable outcomes; people are often uncomfortable attributing meaningful events to chance.
- Context matters: In some societies, suspecting conspiracies is rational given political conditions; not every conspiracy theory is equally unreasonable, depending on the context.
“Conspiracy is the need for an intention in order to explain some phenomena… Sometimes we are frustrated with explanations that leave some room to chance.” — Philippe Huneman [72:13]
Closing and Ongoing Work
[83:50–85:24]
- Huneman’s future projects include a technical book on structural explanation and another (Profiling Societies) that tackles the impact of digital data gathering on knowledge and governance.
Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)
-
On the Purpose of the Book
“The project was really about reflecting on what I’ve been doing in philosophy and trying to venture myself into the big picture and try to make sense of it, at least for me and hopefully for readers.”
— Philippe Huneman [07:48] -
On Causal Explanation
“Explanation should be asymmetric... What makes an explanation explanatory is a reference to causation.”
— Philippe Huneman [19:52] -
On Mathematical Explanations
"If you want to explain the robustness of an ecosystem, I will answer it’s the scale-free nature of the network, and this is a mathematical fact, it’s not a causal process."
— Philippe Huneman [30:09] -
On Reasons for Action
“Explaining what people do is trying to find out the reasons why they act the way they do. But justifying what they do is trying to show those reasons are good reasons. And it’s different.”
— Philippe Huneman [33:40] -
On Biological Functions
”The function of the claws is catching prey... I am saying that catching prey is what made the claws selected by natural selection because it gave a reproductive and survival advantage to the wolves that had claws.”
— Philippe Huneman [48:54] -
On the Purpose of Life
“The question about the purpose of life... I tend to think that the question doesn’t really make sense actually.”
— Philippe Huneman [58:17] -
On Modal Realism
"Causation for the causal statements are about what would happen in worlds like ours, except regarding the thing A that I’m saying it’s the cause of B."
— Philippe Huneman [66:14] -
On Conspiracy Theories
“Conspiracy is the need for an intention in order to explain some phenomena… Sometimes we are frustrated with explanations that leave some room to chance.”
— Philippe Huneman [72:13]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- [02:21–08:56]: Dr. Huneman’s background and motivation
- [09:57–22:31]: Deduction, induction, causation in science
- [22:39–31:11]: Mathematical/structural explanation in ecology
- [31:11–40:55]: Reasons and rationality in human action
- [41:24–54:09]: Purpose, function, and Darwin in biology
- [54:18–59:36]: Philosophical problems of the purpose of life
- [59:36–70:47]: Historical causation and modal realism
- [70:47–83:50]: Why conspiracy theories thrive (chance, order, intention)
- [83:50–85:24]: Dr. Huneman’s future projects
Summary Conclusion
Dr. Philippe Huneman’s Why? is a sweeping philosophical inquiry into the multivalence of the question “why,” showing how it cuts across scientific explanation, human motivation, biological function, and political life. Throughout the episode, Huneman challenges simple answers, focusing on the importance of context, the instability of certain concepts (like chance and purpose), and the dangers of conflating different types of explanation. The discussion is both accessible and intellectually rewarding—ideal for anyone interested in the philosophy of science, the logic of explanation, and the enduring puzzle of reasons.