Advertisement

Causation and Constitution

  • Beate Krickel
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 13)

Abstract

In Chap.  2 we learned that there are etiological mechanisms that are responsible for phenomena by causing them and that there are constitutive mechanisms that bring about phenomena by constituting them. Still, many questions remain unanswered. First, as argued in Chap.  5, the interventionist approach to constitutive relevance is confronted with several problems and I have not yet explained how we can solve these. Second, as argued in Chap.  4, the notion of activity causation and that of a mechanistic level crucially depend on a clear understanding of mechanistic constitution. So far, I have not said much about what mechanistic constitution is. Besides these open questions, the attentive reader might have wondered: Isn’t there a tension in the reasoning so far? How can etiological mechanisms activity-cause their phenomena, while at the same time their components are causally relevant for the phenomenon? It is common sense among philosophers of causation that production theories such as activity causation, and difference-making accounts such as interventionist causal relevance, have different implications with regard to what counts as a cause and what does not. But how, then, can EA-mechanisms at the same time activity-cause their phenomena and be causally relevant (in the interventionist sense) for them? Indeed, a similar tension seems to arise for constitutive mechanisms as well. On the assumption that mechanistic constitution is a substantial metaphysical notion, whereas constitutive relevance is not, one might wonder how a constitutive mechanism can be constitutively relevant (in the interventionist sense) for a phenomenon and at the same time constitute it (in a to-be-specified metaphysical sense). In this chapter I provide answers to the open questions, and I show how the apparent tension can be resolved. First, I address the causal duality inherent not only in my reasoning but in the new mechanistic thinking in general. Second, in the remaining sections, I discuss the notions of constitutive relevance and mechanistic constitution. I start with a summary of what we have learned about constitutive mechanisms so far. Then I provide a solution to the problems afflicting the interventionist approach to constitutive relevance as discussed in Chap.  5. I will argue that constitutive relevance indeed can be spelled out in terms of causal relevance, which allows for a solution of the problems. Still, I will show how we can maintain the central assumption that causal and constitutive relevance are mutually exclusive relations in the sense that if X is causally relevant for Y, it cannot be constitutively relevant for Y, and vice versa. I will show how this idea not only can solve the problems discussed in Chap.  5, but can also make sense of a non-mysterious notion of interlevel causation. Finally, I will explain what I take mechanistic constitution to be—the metaphysical counterpart of constitutive relevance.

References

  1. Baumgartner, M., & Casini, L. (2017). An abductive theory of constitution. Philosophy of Science, 84, 214–233.  https://doi.org/10.1086/690716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, M., & Gebharter, A. (2015). Constitutive relevance, mutual manipulability, and fat-handedness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 731–756.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, M., Casini, L., & Krickel, B. (2018). Horizontal surgicality and mechanistic constitution. Erkenntnis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0033-5.
  4. Beebee, H. (2004). Causing and nothingness. In L. A. Paul, E. J. Hall, & J. Collins (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 291–308). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, K. (2008). Exclusion again. In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced: New essays on reduction, explanation, and causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (2007). Hunting causes and using them: Approaches in philosophy and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casini, L. (2016). Can interventions rescue glennan mechanistic account of causality? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 1155–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiFrisco, J. (2016). Time scales and levels of organization. Erkenntnis, 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9844-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S342–S353.  https://doi.org/10.1086/341857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glennan, S. (2010). Ephemeral mechanisms and historical explanation. Erkenntnis, 72, 251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9203-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glennan, S. (2011). Singular and general causal relations: A mechanist perspective. Causality in the Sciences, 789–817.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, N. (2004). Two concepts of causation. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 225–276). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Handfield, T., Twardy, C. R., Korb, K. B., & Oppy, G. (2008). The metaphysics of causal models. Erkenntnis, 68, 149–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-007-9060-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume, D. (2011). In C. R. Brown, T. Griffith, & W. E. Morris (Eds.), The essential philosophical works (Classics of World Literature Series). Ware: Wordsworth Editions, Limited.Google Scholar
  18. Illari, P. M. K., & Russo, F. (2014). Causality: Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. John Locke Lectures. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kaiser, M. I., & Krickel, B. (2017). The metaphysics of constitutive mechanistic phenomena. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68, 745–779.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Krickel, B. (2017). Making sense of interlevel causation in mechanisms from a metaphysical perspective. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48, 453–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9373-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krickel, B. (2018). Saving the mutual manipulability account of constitutive relevance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 68, 58–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kroedel, T. (2015). Dualist mental causation and the exclusion problem. Nous, 49, 357–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (2004). Void and object. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 277–290). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Machamer, P. (2004). Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18, 27–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590412331289242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Menzies, P. (2014). Counterfactual theories of causation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 201. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. Paul, L. A. (2010). The puzzles of material constitution. Philosophy Compass, 5, 579–590.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Psillos, S. (2002). Causation and explanation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Psillos, S. (2004). A glimpse of the secret connexion: Harmonizing mechanisms with counterfactuals. Perspectives on Science, 12, 288–319.  https://doi.org/10.1162/1063614042795426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romero, F. (2015). Why there isn’t inter-level causation in mechanisms. Synthese, 192, 3731–3755.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0718-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salmon, W. C. (1994). Causality without counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 61, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schaffer, J. (2016). The metaphysics of causation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2016. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  37. Shoemaker, S. (2007). Physical realization. In Physical review letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Strevens, M. (2013). Causality reunified. Erkenntnis, 78, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williamson, J. (2011). Mechanistic theories of causality part II. Philosophy Compass, 6, 434–444.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00401.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Woodward, J. (2015). Interventionism and causal exclusion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91, 303–347.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Krickel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IIRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations