Mutual manipulability and causal inbetweenness

Citation data:

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

Publication Year:
2018
Usage 182
Downloads 182
Captures 8
Readers 8
Social Media 28
Shares, Likes & Comments 26
Tweets 2
Citations 4
Citation Indexes 4
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/11083
DOI:
10.1007/s11229-014-0564-5
Author(s):
Harinen, Totte
Publisher(s):
Springer Nature, Springer (Springer Science+Business Media B.V.)
Tags:
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.