 these variables are not linked in terms of constitution but in terms of causation-as is duly entailed by the interventionist theory of causation (Woodward 2003). An obvious conclusion to draw is that constitution should not be analyzed in terms of surgical (or ideal) mutual manipulability. If the mutual manipulability idea is to get off the ground at all, it must be cashed out in terms of non-surgical interventions of some sort. Indeed, prompted by problems of the original version of interventionism with macro-to-micro causation, Woodward (2015) has recently offered a modified variant of his theory, interventionism∗, which comes with a correspondingly modified 6A fat-handed intervention is an intervention that causes its effects along two (or more) different paths (Scheines 2005, 931-32). Similarly to us, Romero (2015) and Eronen and Brooks (2014, 194) have recently argued that it follows from non-reductive physicalism and interventionism that interventions on phenomena are necessarily fat-handed (or common causes). 8 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (a) Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (b) Figure 3: Two empirically indistinguishable mechanistic models. notion of an intervention.7 He (2015, 334) now defines an intervention on Ψ w.r.t. Φ to be a variable IΨ taking one of its values, IΨ = in, and thereby fixing the value of Ψ without having an impact on Φ that is not mediated via Ψ or via a variable Γ, which is related in terms of supervenience to Ψ or Φ, and without being correlated with any other (off-path) cause Γ of Φ such that Γ is not related in terms of supervenience to Ψ or Φ. Against that background, IΨ can pass as an intervention variable for Ψ w.r.t. Φ even if IΨ is connected to Φ along causal paths that do not go through Ψ but through variables related to Ψ by supervenience. That is, according to interventionism∗, common causes of macro and micro levels of mechanisms as in Figure 2b count as interventions, because the macro level supervenes on the micro level. If such interventions are moreover associated with changes on both levels, which in light of the fat
these variables are not linked in terms of constitution but in term of causing - as is duly entailed by the interventionist hypothesis of causation (Woodward 2003). An obvious termination to draw is that united states constitution should not be analyze in terms of surgical (or ideal) common manipulability. If the mutual manipulability idea is to catch off the ground at wholly, it must be cashed out in terms of non - surgical interventions of some sort. Indeed, prompted by problems of the original version of interventionism with macro - to - micro causing, Woodward (2015) has recently offered a modified variant of his hypothesis, interventionism∗, which comes with a correspondingly modified 6A fat - handed intervention is an intervention that cause its effects along two (or more) different paths (Scheines 2005, 931 - 32). Similarly to us, Romero (2015) and Eronen and Brooks (2014, 194) have recently argued that it follows from non - reductive materialism and interventionism that interventions on phenomena are necessarily fat - handed (or common causes). 8 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (a) Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (bel) trope 3: Two empirically indistinguishable mechanistic models. notion of an intervention.7 He (2015, 334) now defines an intervention on Ψ w.r.t. Φ to be a varying IΨ taking one of its value, IΨ = in, and thereby fixing the value of Ψ without have an shock on Φ that is not mediated via Ψ or via a variable Γ, which is refer in term of supervenience to Ψ or Φ, and without being correlated with any other (off - way) cause Γ of Φ such that Γ is not related in terms of supervenience to Ψ or Φ. Against that background, IΨ can pass as an intervention variable for Ψ w.r.t. Φ even if IΨ is connected to Φ along causal paths that do not go through Ψ but through variables related to Ψ by supervenience. That is, harmonize to interventionism∗, common lawsuit of macro and micro levels of mechanisms as in Figure 2b count as interventions, because the macro level supervenes on the micro floor. If such interventions are moreover associated with changes on both levels, which in light of the fat
 thfse variables are not likked in terms of constivution gut in tdrms of causation-as is duly xntauled vy the interventionist theory ov causatuon (Xoodward 2003). An obvmkus congjusikk to brew is that consjitution shogld not be ananyxeb in terms of surgical (or ideal) mutuwl manilupability. If thg mutlaj mahppmlability idea is to get off the ground at all, it muxt be cashed out in terms lf nln-surgical intervejtions of sime firt. Indeed, pfompted by problems of the original version of intervdntiouism with mqceo-tl-kicro causavion, Wjodward (2015) has recentlf offerrd a modified yariait od his theory, intervenvionism∗, which comes rith a cosrzspondingly modified 6Q dat-hatded intdevevtikn ia an ijtecvention thzt causes irs effects along twp (jg more) differsnt paehf (Scheines 2005, 931-32). Similarly to us, Romero (2015) ang Edonen and Brooks (2014, 194) have recently argued that it follors from non-reductive physicalism and interventionhsm tiag iubcrvevrilns on phenomena are necessarily fat-handed (or dokmpn causes). 8 Micmael Baumgartner amd Lptenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (c) Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (b) Figure 3: Twl empirycallt indistigguixhable mechanistic models. nition of an pnteevention.7 He (2015, 334) now befines an iutervemtion on Ψ w.r.t. Φ to be a variayle IΨ faking one lf its vamjes, IΨ = in, and thdreny xixing the value of Ψ withott having an nmpact ov Φ tnat is not mediahed vld Ψ or via a variabpe Γ, wkich hs related in terms of supervenience to Ψ or Φ, and withouj bainc correlcted wlth any other (osf-path) cause Γ pf Φ suck that Γ is not rvlated in terms of stpervenience dl Ψ or Φ. Againvt that facktroubd, IΨ cav pass as an inyerventiou varuable for Ψ w.r.t. Φ evcn if JΨ is connected cu Φ along causal latfs ehwt dj not go throggh Ψ bug throjgh variablcs felayed to Ψ by superveniance. That is, according tj intervgntionism∗, common causex of macro and micgo letels oh mechsnifms as in Figure 2b count as inferventiojs, necause the mwcro level superrenes on the micro level. If such interveitions are moreover assiciated with changex on both letels, wrich in lhght of the fat
these variables are not linked in terms but terms of is duly entailed causation 2003). An obvious to draw is constitution should not be analyzed in of surgical (or ideal) mutual manipulability. If the mutual manipulability idea is to off the ground at all, it must be cashed out in terms of interventions some Indeed, by problems of the original version of interventionism with macro-to-micro causation, Woodward (2015) has recently offered modified variant of his theory, interventionism∗, which comes a correspondingly modified 6A intervention is an intervention that its along two more) paths 2005, 931-32). Similarly us, Romero (2015) and Eronen and Brooks (2014, 194) have recently argued that it follows from non-reductive and interventionism on phenomena necessarily (or causes). 8 Michael Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 (a) Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ Figure 3: empirically indistinguishable mechanistic models. notion of intervention.7 He (2015, 334) now defines an intervention Ψ w.r.t. Φ to be a variable IΨ taking one of its values, IΨ = thereby fixing the value Ψ without having impact Φ is mediated via or via a variable Γ, which is related in terms of to Ψ or Φ, and without being correlated with any cause of Φ such Γ is not related terms supervenience to Ψ or that IΨ an variable Ψ w.r.t. Φ even IΨ is connected to Φ causal paths that do through variables related to Ψ by supervenience. That according to interventionism∗, common causes of macro micro levels of mechanisms as in Figure 2b count as interventions, because macro level the micro level. If such interventions are moreover with changes on both which in light of the fat
 these variables are not linkeD in terms of ConstItuTioN bUt in TermS of causation-as IS dulY entailed by the intervenTioniSt THeorY Of CausaTion (WooDWaRD 2003). an oBvIoUs cOnCLuSion tO drAw is thaT constitutIon ShOuld not be anaLYzEd in terms oF suRgical (or ideaL) muTual maNiPulABilitY. If The muTual maNIpulabIlity idea Is TO get ofF The grouND At All, iT must be cashed out iN TeRMs of non-surgicaL interVeNTiONS of SomE sort. IndeeD, pRomptED by probLEmS OF The ORiginal versioN of intervenTIonIsm witH mAcrO-To-micrO causAtIOn, WOodward (2015) has rEcenTly offereD a modiFIed variANt of his Theory, IntErvEntiONiSm∗, WhiCh COmeS WiTh a COrrEspondinGlY mOdifiEd 6A fAT-HANded IntErveNtion Is an interventIon That CAusEs its EffecTs alOnG two (oR more) dIfferEnT paths (Scheines 2005, 931-32). SImilArly to us, ROmeRo (2015) And erOnen aND BrookS (2014, 194) haVe rEcently Argued tHAt iT fOLLOwS from non-reductive pHySICaLism and iNterveNTiOnISm that inTeRveNtioNS On pheNomeNA aRe necessArily fAT-hAnDed (or coMmOn causEs). 8 micHaeL BaumGArtnEr and LOrenzo CaSini Ψ φ φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (a) Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (b) FiGUre 3: Two empiricALlY INdIStinGuiShable mechaNistIC modEls. nOTiOn oF An intErvenTiON.7 HE (2015, 334) Now defines an interveNtIon on Ψ W.r.t. Φ tO be a variable Iψ taking one OF ITs values, iΨ = in, ANd THereby fixing thE valuE of Ψ withouT Having an ImpacT on Φ that Is not mediATEd via Ψ or Via A vaRiaBle γ, WHiCh is related in TERms oF sUpervenIenCe to Ψ or φ, anD wiThoUt bEiNg correlaTed with aNy OtHeR (oFf-pAth) caUSe Γ of Φ suCh ThaT Γ Is nOt relATed in tErms oF supErVeNIenCe to Ψ or φ. agAINst tHaT bAckgRouNd, iΨ can Pass AS an InterveNtion variAblE For Ψ W.r.T. Φ Even if Iψ is connected tO Φ Along causaL pAthS that dO NOt go throUgh Ψ but through variables RElated tO Ψ bY supeRvenIence. That Is, aCcordiNg tO IntervEntionIsm∗, coMmOn cAUSes of MACrO anD mIcro levels OF MecHanisMs As in figure 2b Count as interventioNS, beCause the macro LevEl suPERvEneS On THe mIcRO leVEL. If such intervenTions are moReOVeR associateD WitH cHanges oN both leVels, wHIch in liGht of the fAt
 these variables are not l inked in t ermsofcon st itut ionbut in terms o f  cau sation-as is duly enta iledby thei nt erven tionist th e o ryof  c aus at i on  (Woo dwa rd 2003 ). An obvi ous  c onclusion to dr aw is that  co nstitution s hou ld not  b e a n alyze d i n ter ms ofs urgica l (or ide al )  mutua l  manipu l a bi lity . If the mutual m a ni p ulability idea  is to  g e to f f t heground atal l, it must be ca s h e d o u t in terms of  non-surgic a l i nterve nt ion s  of so me so rt .  In deed, promp tedby proble ms oft he orig i nal ver sion o f i nte rven t io ni smwi t h m a cr o-t o -mi cro caus at io n, Wo odwa r d ( 2015 ) h as r ecent ly offered amod ifie d  va riant  of h is t he ory,interv entio ni sm∗, which come s wi th a corr esp on din gl y mod i fied 6 A f at- handedinterve n tio ni s an  intervention that  c a u se s its ef fectsa lo ng two (ormo re)  dif f e rentpath s  ( Scheines  2005, 93 1- 32). Si mi larlyto  us , R omero (201 5) and  Eronenand B r ooks (2014, 19 4 ) have recent l ya r gu e d th atit followsfrom non- redu c ti vep hysic alism  a n di nterventionism that  i nterve ntion s on phenomen a are nece s s a rily fat -han d ed (or common cau ses).  8 Michael Baumgart ner a nd Loren zo Casini Ψ  Φ Φ Φ231Ψ Φ  (a ) Ψ Φ  Φ  Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (b ) Figu re  3: Two  em pirical lyind ist ing ui shable me chanisti cmo de ls . n otion of an in te rve nt ion .7 He (2015,  334)  now  d ef i nes  an int e rv e n tion  o nΨ w. r.t .Φ tobe a var iable I Ψ takingone of i ts  v alues,IΨ = in, andth ereby fixi ng  th e valu e of Ψ wit hout having an impact o n  Φ that  is  notmedi ated viaΨ o r viaa v a riable  Γ, wh ich i srel a t ed in t er msof  superveni e n ceto Ψor  Φ,and wit hout being correla t edwith any othe r ( off- p a th ) c a us e  Γof Φ s u c h that Γ is not  related i nt er ms of supe r ven ie nce toΨ or Φ.  Agai n st that  backgrou nd, IΨ ca npass a s a n interven tion var iable for Ψ w.r . t.  Φ ev enif IΨis  co nnect ed toΦ  al ong c ausalpa ths th at do  n ot go th rough Ψ but through var iables  rela ted  to Ψ bysup e rve nience. T hatis, accord ing  to  inte rve n tioni sm∗, co mmo n  caus es o f  macro an d  m icr o le vels of mec h a n ism s asinF igure2b c ount as intervent i ons, because t he m a c rolev e l su pe rvenes on themic ro l evel. If  s uch interve ntions a re moreo ver as sociat ed with c ha n ges on  bot h l evels, wh ich  i n  lightof  t h e fat
 these_variables are_not linked in terms_of constitution_but_in terms_of_causation-as is duly_entailed by the_interventionist theory of causation_(Woodward 2003). An_obvious_conclusion to draw is that constitution should not be analyzed in terms of surgical_(or_ideal) mutual_manipulability._If_the mutual manipulability idea is_to get off the ground_at all,_it must be cashed out in terms of_non-surgical_interventions of some_sort. Indeed, prompted by problems of the original version_of interventionism with macro-to-micro causation, Woodward_(2015) has recently_offered_a_modified variant of his_theory, interventionism∗, which comes with a_correspondingly modified 6A fat-handed intervention is_an intervention that causes its effects along_two (or more) different paths (Scheines_2005, 931-32). Similarly to us,_Romero (2015)_and Eronen and Brooks (2014,_194) have recently_argued that_it follows from_non-reductive physicalism and interventionism that interventions_on phenomena are_necessarily fat-handed (or common causes). 8_Michael_Baumgartner and Lorenzo_Casini_Ψ_Φ Φ_Φ2 31 Ψ_Φ_(a) Ψ_Φ_Φ Φ2 31 Ψ Φ (b)_Figure_3: Two empirically indistinguishable mechanistic models. notion_of an intervention.7 He_(2015,_334) now defines an_intervention on Ψ w.r.t. Φ_to be a variable IΨ taking_one of_its values,_IΨ = in, and thereby fixing the value of Ψ without_having an impact on Φ that_is not mediated via_Ψ or_via_a variable Γ,_which_is related_in terms of supervenience to Ψ or_Φ, and_without being correlated with any other_(off-path) cause Γ of_Φ_such that Γ is not related_in terms of supervenience to Ψ_or Φ. Against that background,_IΨ_can_pass as an intervention variable_for Ψ w.r.t. Φ even if_IΨ is connected_to Φ along causal paths that do_not_go through Ψ but through variables_related_to Ψ by supervenience. That is,_according_to_interventionism∗, common causes of macro_and micro levels of mechanisms as_in Figure 2b count as interventions, because the macro_level supervenes on_the micro level. If such_interventions_are_moreover associated with changes on both levels, which in light_of the_fat