. According to NDC, it thus holds that a constitutive relation cannot be conclusively verified; rather, it can only be inductively corroborated. In that light, NDC-defined constitution is much closer to non-causation or causal irrelevance than to causation. To establish that X is causally irrelevant to An Abductive Theory of Constitution 15 Y, according to difference-making theories, requires establishing the nonexistence of a (possible) scenario where X makes a difference to Y. No (finite) data sample could ever conclusively establish this. Due to the fact that it is a universally defined relation, causal irrelevance-just as NDC-defined constitution-can only be inductively corroborated. Of course, NDC does not yield a notion of constitution that is co-extensional with causal irrelevance. After all, constitution is a robust dependence relation, whereas the extension of causal irrelevance encompasses many independent entities. Still, the extension of the notion of NDC-constitution is a proper subset of the extension of the notion of causal irrelevance (as defined by difference-making theories). This squares nicely with our initial background assumption-taken from the canon of mechanistic theorizing-that constitution is a distinctly non-causal form of dependence (Craver and Bechtel 2007). A third manifest difference between NDC and MM is that the former defines constitutive relevance of Φi to Ψ with recourse to sets of variables, whereas, according to the latter, that relation is defined in terms of the pair 〈Φi,Ψ〉 alone. That is, while MM renders constitutive relevance as intrinsic property of the pair 〈Φi,Ψ〉, NDC renders it as extrinsic property of that pair, which depends on whether Φi is contained in a constituting set of Ψ. This does justice to the fact that, contrary to causal dependencies, pairwise constitutive dependencies cannot be isolated from their context; rather, a constituent Φi is an indispensable element of a system that figures as supervenience base realizing Ψ in a given mechanistic context-to the effect that the phenomenon cannot exist without the constituents. At the same time, the set-relativity of NDC-defined constitution does not turn it into a relativized notion. Whether Φi is a constituent of Ψ does not depend on the existence of a particular constituting set but on the existence of any such set. Moreover, No De-Coupling ensures
. According to NDC, it thus holds that a constitutive relation back cannot be conclusively verify; rather, it can only be inductively corroborated. In that sparkle, NDC - defined constitution is a lot closer to non - causation or causal irrelevance than to causation. To prove that X is causally irrelevant to An Abductive Theory of Constitution 15 Y, accord to difference - making hypothesis, command establishing the nonexistence of a (possible) scenario where X makes a difference to Y. No (finite) data sample distribution could ever conclusively establish this. Due to the fact that it is a universally defined relative, causal irrelevance - just as NDC - defined fundamental law - can only be inductively confirm. Of course, NDC does not yield a notion of constitution that is co - extensional with causal irrelevance. After wholly, constitution is a robust dependence relation, whereas the extension of causal irrelevance encompasses many autonomous entity. even, the extension of the notion of NDC - constitution is a proper subset of the extension of the notion of causal irrelevance (as defined by difference - making theory). This squares nicely with our initial background presumption - remove from the canon of mechanistic theorizing - that constitution is a distinctly non - causal form of dependence (Craver and Bechtel 2007). A third manifest difference between NDC and MM is that the former defines constituent relevance of Φi to Ψ with recourse to sets of variables, whereas, according to the latter, that relation is defined in terms of the pair 〈 Φi, Ψ 〉 alone. That is, while MM renders constitutive relevance as intrinsic property of the pair 〈 Φi, Ψ 〉, NDC render it as extrinsic place of that couple, which depend on whether Φi is contained in a constituting set of Ψ. This does judge to the fact that, contrary to causal dependencies, pairwise constitutive colony cannot be isolated from their context; rather, a constituent Φi is an indispensable component of a system that figures as supervenience foundation realizing Ψ in a give mechanistic context - to the effect that the phenomenon cannot exist without the constituents. At the same prison term, the set - relativity of NDC - defined constitution does not turn it into a relativized impression. Whether Φi is a constituent of Ψ does not depend on the existence of a finical constituting set but on the existence of any such set. Moreover, No De - Coupling ensures
. Acfording to NDC, it thus hulds that a constitutite relafion canvot be conclusively verified; rqther, it can only be inductkvely corgoborated. In uhat light, NDC-defmhed constitutjln iv much closer tp non-causadion or causal ifrzlevance than to causation. To establysh thay D is causally yrrekqvanf to An Abductive Theory of Constifution 15 Y, according yo difference-making theorifs, rfquires establishijg the nonezistqbce of a (posrible) scenario where X makes a difference to Y. No (finkte) dcta sample xoyld gver conclusmvely vstablish this. Due to the favt that it is s uiiveesally defined relatimn, causal irrelevagce-just av UDC-defined constitutiin-xan otly te iveucgivtly ckrrobogatxd. Of courss, NDC does bot yield a notion pf bpnstitution fhat if so-extensional with causal irrelevance. Axted all, constitution is a robust dependence repation, whqreas the extension of causal irrelevance encompavses jxny ikdepdbdfnt entities. Still, the extension of the notiog og KDC-constitution ls a proper subset ov yre extension uf the nofion of causal irrflevancg (as dwfined by difgerence-making theories). This squares nicvly qith our initial bcckground asrumpjion-talen from the canon of mzchaniatic theorixing-that dunstitution is a dixthnctly non-causal form of dqpendence (Crarer and Cechjel 2007). A ehird manivest difference between JDC aud MM is that tje former defines constitutive cxlevance of Φi tm Ψ fith recjurse to sets of vwriables, wherecs, accorbing tu the lattvr, that rxlation is dqfined in terkd of the paic 〈Φi,Ψ〉 alone. Thar is, while OO renders consyitutive gejevabce as intrinsic pvoperjy of the pair 〈Φi,Ψ〉, UBC renders it as rxtfinfib pcoperef of that pahr, wficf depevds on whetmer Φi ix contained in a convtithting set of Ψ. This djes justuce to tre fact that, vontrary to causal depeidencixs, paitwife constitutive dependencies cznnot be lsojated from treir context; ratker, a constituent Φi is an indispensable xlement of a system thar figures as supervgnitnce base reakizind Ψ in a ghven mechanistic conrext-to the effect that the phenomenon dannot exish without the constituents. At the same time, the set-relativity of NDC-definwd constitution doss npt tugn nt nnto a welavitized notion. Whetner Φi is a constituent of Ψ does not depanb on the existence of a partivuuar constitutkng set but on the existsnce of sny such set. Moreover, No De-Coupking ensures
. According to NDC, it thus holds constitutive cannot be verified; rather, it In light, NDC-defined constitution much closer to or causal irrelevance than to causation. establish that X is causally irrelevant to An Abductive Theory of Constitution 15 according to difference-making theories, requires establishing the nonexistence of a (possible) scenario where makes difference Y. (finite) data sample could ever conclusively establish this. Due to the fact that it is a defined relation, causal irrelevance-just as NDC-defined constitution-can only inductively corroborated. Of course, does not yield a notion constitution is co-extensional causal After constitution is a dependence relation, whereas the extension of causal irrelevance encompasses many independent entities. Still, the extension of the of NDC-constitution proper subset the of notion of causal defined by difference-making theories). This squares initial background assumption-taken from the canon of mechanistic constitution is distinctly non-causal form of dependence (Craver Bechtel 2007). A third manifest difference between NDC MM is that the former defines constitutive relevance of Φi to Ψ with recourse to variables, whereas, according to latter, that relation defined terms the 〈Φi,Ψ〉 alone. is, while MM renders constitutive relevance as intrinsic property of the 〈Φi,Ψ〉, NDC renders it as extrinsic property of that pair, on Φi is contained a constituting set of This justice to the fact to dependencies, cannot isolated their context; rather, a Φi is an indispensable element a system that figures in a given mechanistic context-to the effect that phenomenon cannot exist without the constituents. At same time, the set-relativity of NDC-defined constitution does not turn it into relativized notion. is a constituent of Ψ does not depend the existence of a constituting set but on the existence of any such Moreover, De-Coupling ensures
. According to NDC, it thus holds That a constItutiVe rElaTiOn caNnot Be conclusively VErifIed; rather, it can only be inDuctiVeLY corRObOrateD. In that LIgHT, nDC-DeFiNed CoNStItutiOn iS much clOser to non-cAusAtIon or causal iRReLevance thaN to Causation. To eStaBlish tHaT X iS CausaLly IrrelEvant tO an AbduCtive TheoRy OF ConstITution 15 Y, ACCoRdinG to difference-makiNG tHEories, requires EstablIsHInG THe nOneXistence of A (pOssibLE) scenarIO wHERE X mAKes a differencE to Y. No (finitE) DatA samplE cOulD Ever coNclusIvELy eStablish thiS. Due To the fact That it IS a univeRSally deFined rElaTioN, cauSAl IrRelEvANce-JUsT as ndC-dEfined coNsTiTutioN-can ONLY Be inDucTiveLy corRoborated. Of coUrsE, NDC DOes Not yiEld a nOtioN oF consTitutiOn thaT iS co-extensional wIth cAusal irreLevAnCe. AFtEr all, COnstitUtiOn iS a robusT dependENce ReLATIoN, whereas the extensiOn OF CaUsal irreLevancE EnCoMPasses maNy IndEpenDENt entItieS. stIll, the exTensioN Of ThE notion Of nDC-conStItuTioN is a pROper Subset Of the extEnsioN Of the notion of cAUsal irrelevanCE (aS DEfINed bY diFference-makIng tHEoriEs). ThIS sQuaREs nicEly wiTh OUr INitial background assUmPtion-tAken fRom the canon of MechanistiC THEorizing-That COnSTitution is a disTinctLy non-causaL Form of dePendeNce (CraveR and BechtEL 2007). a third maNifEst DifFerENCe Between NDC and mm Is thAt The formEr dEfines cOnsTitUtiVe rElEvance of ΦI to Ψ with ReCoUrSe To sEts of VAriables, WhEreAs, AccOrdinG To the lAtter, That ReLaTIon Is definED iN TErms Of ThE paiR 〈Φi,ψ〉 aLone. THat iS, WhiLe MM renDers constItuTIve rElEvAnce as iNtrinsic propeRtY of the pair 〈φi,ψ〉, NDc rendeRS It as extrInsic property of that pair, WHich depEndS on whEtheR Φi is contAinEd in a cOnsTItutinG set of ψ. This DoEs jUSTice tO THe FacT tHat, contrarY TO caUsal dEpEndeNcies, paIrwise constitutive DEpeNdencies cannoT be IsolATEd FroM ThEIr cOnTExt; RATher, a constituenT Φi is an indIsPEnSable elemeNT of A sYstem thAt figurEs as sUPerveniEnce base rEalizing Ψ In A givEN MecHanistic coNtext-to tHe effect tHAt the PHeNomenOn cAnnot eXiSt wIthouT the coNStiTuentS. At the SaMe time, The seT-rElativitY of NDC-defined constitutiOn does Not tuRn iT into a relAtiVIzeD notion. WhEtheR Φi is a consTitUenT of Ψ dOes NOt depEnd oN ThE exIStencE of a PArticular COnStiTUTiNg set but on tHE EXisTence Of aNY such sEt. MoReover, No De-CouplinG Ensures
. According to NDC, it thu s holds th at acon sti tu tive  rel ation cannot b e  con clusively verified; ra ther,  i t  can on ly be  induct i ve l y  co rr ob ora te d .In th atlight,NDC-define d c on stitution is mu ch closertonon-causatio n o r caus al  ir r eleva nce  than  to ca u sation . To esta bl i sh tha t  X is c a u sa llyirrelevant to AnA bd u ctive Theory o f Cons ti t ut i o n 1 5 Y , accordin gto di f ference - ma k i n g t h eories, requi res establi s hin g theno nex i stence  of a  ( p oss ible) scena riowhere X m akes a differe n ce to Y . No ( fin ite ) da t asa mpl ec oul d  e ver con clusivel yes tabli sh t h i s .  Due  to  the  fact  that it is a  un iver s all y def inedrela ti on, c ausalirrel ev ance-just as ND C-de fined con sti tu tio n- can o n ly beind uct ively c orrobor a ted .O f co urse, NDC does not  y i e ld  a notio n of c o ns ti t ution th at  is  co- e x tensi onal wi th causa l irre l ev an ce. Aft er  all,co nst itu tioni s arobust  depende nce r e lation, wherea s  the extensio n  o f ca u salirr elevance en comp a sses  man y  i nde p enden t ent it i es .  Still, the extensi on  of th e not ion of NDC-co nstitution i s  a prope r su b se t  of the extens ion o f the noti o n of cau sal i rrelevan ce (as de f i ned by d iff ere nce -ma k i ng  theories). T h i s sq ua res nic ely  with o urini tia l b ac kground a ssumptio n- ta ke nfro m the canon of  m ech an ist ic th e orizin g-tha t co ns ti t uti on is a di s t inct ly  n on-c aus al  form  ofd epe ndence(Craver a ndB echt el  2 007). A  third manife st  differenc ebet ween N D C  and MMis that the former defi n es cons tit utive  rel evance of  Φi  to Ψwit h  recou rse to  sets  o f v a r iable s ,  w her ea s, accordi n g  to  thela tter , thatrelation is define d  in  terms of the  pa ir 〈 Φ i ,Ψ 〉 a l on e . T ha t  is , while MM render s constitu ti v erelevancea s i nt rinsicpropert y oft he pair  〈Φi,Ψ〉,NDC rende rs  ita s  ex trinsic pr operty o f that pa i r, wh i ch  depe nds  on wh et her  Φi i s cont a ine d ina cons ti tuting  setof  Ψ. This  does justice to the fa ct tha t, co ntr ary to ca usa l  de pendencie s, p airwise co nst itu tivedep e ndenc iesc an not be is olat e d from th e ir  co n t ex t; rather,a c ons titue ntΦ i is a n in dispensable eleme n t of a systemthat f igu res as s up ervenience bas e r ea l i zing Ψ i na given mec hanistic  c o ntext -to th e effe ct that t he phenom enon  ca nnot exis t w it h out the  c on s tituen ts.At  the s ame ti m e, t h e  set-relativityof ND C - defin e d c onsti tu tion do e s no t turn itinto a rela tivize d no tion.  Whethe rΦi isa c on stituent o f  Ψ does n ot de pend on  t he e xis tenceof a p artic ular  c ons titutings e tb ut  o n  th e ex isten ce  ofany suchs et. More ove r , No De -C oup l i ng ens u re s 
. According_to NDC,_it thus holds that_a constitutive_relation_cannot be_conclusively_verified; rather, it_can only be_inductively corroborated. In that_light, NDC-defined constitution_is_much closer to non-causation or causal irrelevance than to causation. To establish that X_is_causally irrelevant_to_An_Abductive Theory of Constitution 15_Y, according to difference-making theories,_requires establishing_the nonexistence of a (possible) scenario where X_makes_a difference to_Y. No (finite) data sample could ever conclusively establish_this. Due to the fact that_it is a_universally_defined_relation, causal irrelevance-just as_NDC-defined constitution-can only be inductively corroborated._Of course, NDC does not yield_a notion of constitution that is co-extensional_with causal irrelevance. After all, constitution_is a robust dependence relation,_whereas the_extension of causal irrelevance encompasses_many independent entities._Still, the_extension of the_notion of NDC-constitution is a proper_subset of the_extension of the notion of causal_irrelevance_(as defined by_difference-making_theories)._This squares_nicely with our_initial_background assumption-taken_from_the canon of mechanistic theorizing-that constitution_is_a distinctly non-causal form of dependence (Craver_and Bechtel 2007). A_third_manifest difference between NDC_and MM is that the_former defines constitutive relevance of Φi_to Ψ_with recourse_to sets of variables, whereas, according to the latter, that relation_is defined in terms of the_pair 〈Φi,Ψ〉 alone. That_is, while_MM_renders constitutive relevance_as_intrinsic property_of the pair 〈Φi,Ψ〉, NDC renders it_as extrinsic_property of that pair, which depends_on whether Φi is_contained_in a constituting set of Ψ._This does justice to the fact_that, contrary to causal dependencies,_pairwise_constitutive_dependencies cannot be isolated from_their context; rather, a constituent Φi_is an indispensable_element of a system that figures as_supervenience_base realizing Ψ in a given_mechanistic_context-to the effect that the phenomenon_cannot_exist_without the constituents. At the_same time, the set-relativity of NDC-defined_constitution does not turn it into a relativized notion._Whether Φi is_a constituent of Ψ does_not_depend_on the existence of a particular constituting set but on_the existence_of any such_set. Moreover, No De-Coupling ensures