Three Problems for the MutualManipulability Account of Constitutive Relevancein Mechanisms
In this article, I present two conceptual problems for Craver’s mutual manipula-bility account of constitutive relevance in mechanisms. First, constitutive relevancethreatens to imply causal relevance despite Craver (and Bechtel)’s claim that they arestrictly distinct. Second, if (as is intuitively appealing) parthood is deﬁned in terms of spatio-temporal inclusion, then the mutual manipulability account is prone to counter-examples,asIshowbyacaseofendosymbiosis.Ialsopresentamethodologicalproblem(a case of experimental underdetermination) and formulate two partial, but falliblesolutions based on the notions of parthood and synchronicity.
Intralevel Causal Relations and Invariance
Interlevel Constitutive Relations and Mutual Manipulability
Doesn’t Constitutive Relevance Entail Causal Relevance?
Parthood and Endosymbiosis
Possible Ways Out
The Problem of Underdetermination
Solving the Problem of Underdetermination: Parthood
Synchronicity, the Etiological Nature of Experimental Apparatus, and Causal-Constitutive Propagation
Pragmatic Interests and the Boundaries of Mechanisms
Brit. J. Phil. Sci.
The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
British Society for the Philosophy of Science
. All rights reserved.For Permissions, please email: email@example.com:10.1093/bjps/axr036Advance Access published on November 18, 2011