Mutual manipulability and causal inbetweenness

Citation data:

Synthese, ISSN: 0039-7857, Vol: 195, Issue: 1, Page: 35-54

Publication Year:
Usage 182
Downloads 182
Captures 8
Readers 8
Social Media 28
Shares, Likes & Comments 26
Tweets 2
Citations 4
Citation Indexes 4
Repository URL:
Harinen, Totte
Springer Nature, Springer (Springer Science+Business Media B.V.)
Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
Carl Craver’s mutual manipulability criterion aims to pick out all and only those components of a mechanism that are constitutively relevant with respect to a given phenomenon. In devising his criterion, Craver has made heavy use of the notion of an ideal intervention, which is a tool for illuminating causal concepts in causal models. The problem is that typical mechanistic models contain non-causal relations in addition to causal ones, which is why the standard concept of an ideal intervention is not appropriate in that context. In this paper, I first show how top-down interventions in mechanistic models violate the conditions for ideal interventions. Drawing from recent developments in the causal exclusion literature, I then argue for extended interventionism better suited for the purposes of the new mechanist. Finally, I show why adopting such an extended account leads to the surprising consequence that an important subset of mechanistic interlevel relations comes out as causal.

This article has 0 Wikipedia mention.