Paragraph about Chemical equation software

These considerations raise the following question: Is Kitcher's
account of unification sufficiently discriminating or nuanced to
distinguish those unifications having to do with explanation from
other sorts of unification? The worry is that it is not. The
conception of unification underlying Kitcher's Chemical equation account seems to be at
bottom one of descriptive economy or information compression —
deriving as much from as few patterns of inference as possible. Many
cases of classificatory and purely formal unification involving a
common mathematical framework seem to fit this
characterization. Consider schemes for biological classification and
schemes for the classification of geological and astronomical objects
like rocks and stars. If I know that individuals belong to a certain
classificatory category (e. Ufology g. *X*s are mammals or polar
bears), I can use this information to derive a great many of their
other properties (*X*s have backbones, hearts, their young are
born alive etc.) and this is a pattern of inference that can be used
repeatedly for many different sorts of *X*s. But despite the
willingness of some philosophers to regard such derivations as
explanatory, it is common scientific practice to regard such schemes
as “merely descriptive” and as telling us little or
nothing about the causes or mechanisms that explain why *X*s
have backbones or hearts.^{[ 17 ]}