 common causes. The best explanation for this common-cause coupling is the existence of an additional dependence relation, viz. constitution. Apart from adequately capturing the essential characteristics of constitution missed by MM, NDC has important ramifications for constitutional discovery-most notably, that there is no experimentum crucis for constitution, not even under ideal discovery circumstances. 1 Introduction According to mechanistic theories of explanation, the upper (macro) level behavior Ψ of a system S is explained by carving out the lower (micro) level mechanism constituting that behavior (Glennan 1996; Machamer et al. 2000; Craver 2007). Hence, a theory of mechanistic explanation presupposes a theory of constitution providing criteria that identify those of S's spatiotemporal parts whose activities are constitutively relevant to S's Ψ-ing. The most popular theory of constitution, due to Craver (2007), purports to furnish such criteria by drawing on conceptual and methodological resources that have proven valuable in analyzing and discovering causation-notwithstanding the fact that constitution and causation are very different relations (Craver and Bechtel 2007). Since the time of Mill (1843), one of the dominant approaches to uncovering causation consists in intervening on causes (in controlled environments) to test whether they make a difference to their purported effects. As is well-known, Woodward (2003) has built his influential interventionist theory of causation on the fundament of this experimental protocol. While causation is a unidirectional difference-making relation-i.e. causes change their effects, but not vice versa- and holds among mereologically independent entities, Craver (2007) argues that constitution is a bidirectional or mutual difference-making relation among wholes and some of their spatiotemporal parts. Correspondingly, he proposes a theory of constitution that adds a parthood and a mutuality tweak to Woodward's interventionist theory of causation. Subject to Craver's (2007, 153) mutual manipulability theory (MM), the behavior Φ of a spatiotemporal partX of S constitutes S's Ψ-ing ∗Forthcoming in Philosophy of Science. †Dept. of Philosophy, University of Geneva. Email: michael.baumgartner@unige.ch ‡Dept. of Philosophy, University of Geneva. Email: lorenzo.casini@unige.ch 1 2 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini iff it is possible to (ideally) intervene (from the bottom up) on X's
common causes. The best explanation for this common - lawsuit yoke is the existence of an additional addiction relation, viz. constitution. aside from adequately capturing the essential characteristic of united states constitution missed by MM, NDC have important ramifications for constituent discovery - most notably, that there is no experimentum crucis for constitution, not even under ideal discovery circumstance. 1 Introduction harmonize to mechanistic theories of explanation, the upper (macro) level demeanor Ψ of a system S is explained by carving out the low (micro) level mechanism constituting that demeanor (Glennan 1996; Machamer et al. 2000; Craver 2007). Hence, a hypothesis of mechanistic explanation presupposes a theory of constitution providing criteria that identify those of S's spatiotemporal part whose activities are constitutively relevant to S's Ψ - ing. The most popular theory of constitution, due to Craver (2007), intent to furnish such criteria by drawing on conceptual and methodological resources that have proven valuable in analyzing and discovering causation - notwithstanding the fact that constitution and causation are very unlike relation (Craver and Bechtel 2007). Since the time of Mill (1843), one of the prevailing access to uncovering causation consists in intervene on causes (in controlled environments) to test whether they create a difference to their purported effects. As is well - known, Woodward (2003) has build his influential interventionist theory of causation on the fundament of this experimental protocol. While causation is a unidirectional difference - making sexual intercourse - i.e. causes change their effects, but not vice versa- and holds among mereologically autonomous entities, Craver (2007) argues that constitution is a bidirectional or mutual difference - making relation among wholes and some of their spatiotemporal parts. Correspondingly, he nominate a theory of united states constitution that adds a parthood and a mutuality tweak to Woodward's interventionist hypothesis of causation. Subject to Craver's (2007, 153) mutual manipulability theory (MM), the demeanor Φ of a spatiotemporal partX of S constitutes S's Ψ - ing ∗Forthcoming in Philosophy of Science. †Dept. of Philosophy, University of Geneva. Email: michael.baumgartner@unige.ch ‡Dept. of Philosophy, University of Geneva. electronic mail: lorenzo.casini@unige.ch 1 2 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini iff it is possible to (ideally) intervene (from the bottom up) on X's
 colmon causes. The best expuanation for thnw commmn-causs couplivg is the existence of an advitiinal eependence relation, vix. constitltion. Apaet fcom adequately celturing the eadentnao characteristlcs of consditution misseg cy MM, NDC has important ramifications for comshitutional dissovegy-iost notably, that there is no experimehtum crlcis for constituyion, not even under ideal fisclvery circumstanced. 1 Introducjjon Qccording to mechanistpe theories kf explanation, the upper (macro) uevel behavior Ψ od a vystem S is explwined by carypng out the loeer (micro) levek mxchabism constituting thav behavior (Glennan 1996; Iachamer at al. 2000; Craver 2007). Hencw, q themry mf mdxhavisuic esplanahioi presupposss a theory of constitution prpvyeing criteria that ydqntify those of S's spatiotemporal parts whkse activities are consritutively relevant tl S's Ψ-ing. Ehe most popular theory of constitution, due to Crdver (2007), ourkovbs tu fkrnish such criteria by drawing on conceptual znc kethodological resources yhwt rave proven vxluablz ih analyzing and didcoverigg caysation-nouwithxtanding the fact that consritution and xausation are very different xelatipns (Ctaver and Bechtel 2007). Sincz the fime of Milp (1843), one of ghe dominant appfoabhes to uncovering causation cjnsists ii intzrvening on vauses (in contropled ctvironments) to tesh whejher tvey make a difference to their purported xhfects. As is eenl-ktown, Woobward (2003) has built hif influential nntervencionisg theory or causavion on the sundament of djis experimeital protjcol. Whioe causxgion is a unidorectional differenxe-making relation-i.c. caurss change their efdects, but not voce vewsw- end hjnds among meseolugizslly kndependent dntiyies, Craver (2007) argues dhat constitution is a bldirectiobal or mttual differemce-making relation amonj wholxs and soie of their spatiotemporal parfs. Corresoonqingly, he prjposcs a theory of constitution that adds a parthood and e mutuality tweak to Woidward's interventiouixt theory oh causwtion. Subbect to Craver's (2007, 153) murual manipulabiliuy theory (MM), the behavikr Φ of a spwtiotemporal partX of S constitutes S's Ψ-ing ∗Forthcoming in Philosophy of Sxience. †Dept. of Phimosolhy, Utirerxity os Geieta. Email: michael.bsumgartner@unige.ch ‡Dept. of Philorophy, Unhvzrsity of Geneva. Email: lorenzp.cxsini@unige.ch 1 2 Michael Baumgartner ans Lorenzp Casini iff it is possible to (odeally) intervene (from tme bottom up) oh X's
common causes. The best explanation for this is existence of additional dependence relation, capturing essential characteristics of missed by MM, has important ramifications for constitutional discovery-most that there is no experimentum crucis for constitution, not even under ideal discovery 1 Introduction According to mechanistic theories of explanation, the upper (macro) level behavior of system is by carving out the lower (micro) level mechanism constituting that behavior (Glennan 1996; Machamer et al. Craver 2007). Hence, a theory of mechanistic explanation a theory of constitution criteria that identify those of spatiotemporal whose activities constitutively to Ψ-ing. The most theory of constitution, due to Craver (2007), purports to furnish such criteria by drawing on conceptual and resources that valuable in and causation-notwithstanding fact that constitution are very different relations (Craver and the time of Mill (1843), one of the approaches to causation consists in intervening on causes controlled environments) to test whether they make a to their purported effects. As is well-known, Woodward (2003) has built his influential interventionist theory on the fundament of experimental protocol. While is unidirectional relation-i.e. change their but not vice versa- and holds among mereologically independent entities, Craver argues that constitution is a bidirectional or mutual difference-making relation and of their spatiotemporal Correspondingly, he proposes a of that adds a parthood mutuality to of Subject Craver's (2007, 153) mutual theory (MM), the behavior Φ a spatiotemporal partX of in Philosophy of Science. †Dept. of Philosophy, University Geneva. Email: michael.baumgartner@unige.ch ‡Dept. of Philosophy, University Geneva. Email: lorenzo.casini@unige.ch 1 2 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini iff it possible to (from the bottom up) on X's
 common causes. The best explanAtion for thIs comMon-CauSe CoupLing Is the existence OF an aDditional dependence relAtion, ViZ. ConsTItUtion. apart frOM aDEQuaTeLy CapTuRInG the eSseNtial chAracteristIcs Of Constitution MIsSed by MM, NDC Has Important ramIfiCationS fOr cONstitUtiOnal dIscoveRY-most nOtably, thaT tHEre is nO ExperimENTuM cruCis for constitutioN, NoT Even under ideal DiscovErY CiRCUmsTanCes. 1 IntroduCtIon AcCOrding tO MeCHANisTIc theories of eXplanation, tHE upPer (macRo) LevEL behavIor Ψ oF a SYstEm S is explaiNed bY carving oUt the lOWer (micrO) Level meChanisM coNstItutINg ThAt bEhAVioR (glEnnAN 1996; MaChamer et Al. 2000; crAver 2007). HEnce, A THEOry oF meChanIstic Explanation prEsuPposES a tHeory Of conStitUtIon prOvidinG critErIa that identify tHose Of S's spatiOteMpOraL pArts wHOse actIviTieS are conStitutiVEly ReLEVAnT to S's Ψ-ing. The most poPuLAR tHeory of cOnstitUTiOn, DUe to CravEr (2007), PurPortS TO furnIsh sUCh Criteria By drawINg On ConceptUaL and meThOdoLogIcal rESourCes thaT have proVen vaLUable in analyziNG and discoveriNG cAUSaTIon-nOtwIthstanding The fACt thAt coNStItuTIon anD causAtIOn ARe very different relaTiOns (CraVer anD Bechtel 2007). Since The time of MILL (1843), One of the DomiNAnT Approaches to unCoverIng causatiON consistS in inTerveninG on causes (IN ControllEd eNviRonMenTS) To Test whether thEY Make A dIfferenCe tO their pUrpOrtEd eFfeCtS. As is well-Known, WooDwArD (2003) hAs BuiLt his INfluentiAl IntErVenTioniST theorY of caUsatIoN oN The FundameNT oF THis eXpErImenTal PrOtocoL. WhiLE caUsation Is a unidirEctIOnal DiFfErence-mAking relation-I.e. Causes chanGe TheIr effeCTS, but not vIce versa- and holds among meREologicAllY indePendEnt entitiEs, CRaver (2007) aRguES that cOnstitUtion Is A biDIRectiONAl Or mUtUal differeNCE-maKing rElAtioN among wHoles and some of theiR SpaTiotemporal paRts. corrESPoNdiNGlY, He pRoPOseS A Theory of constitUtion that aDdS A pArthood and A MutUaLity tweAk to WooDward'S InterveNtionist tHeory of caUsAtioN. sUbjEct to CraveR's (2007, 153) mutual ManipulabILity tHEoRy (MM), tHe bEhavioR Φ Of a SpatiOtempoRAl pArtX oF S consTiTutes S'S Ψ-ing ∗foRthcominG in Philosophy of Science. †DEpt. of PHilosOphY, UniversiTy oF genEva. Email: mIchaEl.baumgartNer@UniGe.ch ‡DEpt. OF PhilOsopHY, UNivERsity Of GeNEva. Email: lOReNzo.CASiNi@unige.ch 1 2 MiCHAEl BAumgaRtnER and LoRenzO Casini iff it is posSIble to (ideally) iNterVENe (fRom THe boTtOm up) on X's
 common causes. The best e xplanation  forthi s c om mon- caus e coupling ist he e xistence of an additio nal d ep e nden c erelat ion, vi z .c o nst it ut ion .A pa rt fr omadequat ely captur ing  t he essential ch aracterist ics  of constitu tio n miss ed  by MM, N DChas i mporta n t rami fications  f o r cons t itution a l  d isco very-most notably ,  t h at there is no  exper im e nt u m  cr uci s for cons ti tutio n , not e v en u n der ideal discove ry circumst a nce s. 1 I nt rod u ctionAccor di n g t o mechanist ic t heories o f expl a nation, the upp er (ma cro ) l evel be ha vio rΨ  of asys t emS is exp la in ed by  car v i n g  out  th e lo wer ( micro) levelmec hani s m c onsti tutin g th at  beha vior ( Glenn an  1996; Machamer  etal. 2000;  Cr av er20 07).H ence,a t heo ry of m echanis t icex p l a na tion presupposes a  t h e or y of con stitut i on  p r ovidingcr ite riat h at id enti f ythose of  S's s p at io tempora lpartswh ose  ac tivit i es a re con stitutiv ely r e levant to S'sΨ -ing. The mos t  p o p ul a r th eor y of consti tuti o n, d ue t o  C rav e r (20 07),pu r po r ts to furnish suchcr iteria  by d rawing on con ceptual an d m ethodolo gica l  r e sources that h ave p roven valu a ble in a nalyz ing anddiscoveri n g  causati on- not wit hst a n di ng the fact t h a t co ns titutio n a nd caus ati onare  ve ry  differen t relati on s(C ra ver  andB echtel 2 00 7).  S inc e the time o f Mil l (1 84 3) ,  on e of th e  d o m inan tap proa che sto un cove r ing  causat ion consi sts in i nt er veningon causes (in  c ontrolleden vir onment s )  to test  whether they make a di f ference  to  thei r pu rported e ffe cts. A s i s  well- known,  Wood wa rd( 2 003)h a sbui lt  his influ e n tia l int er vent ionisttheory of causatio n  on  the fundamen t o f th i s  e xpe r im e nta lp rot o c ol. While causa tion is aun i di rectionald iff er ence-ma king re latio n -i.e. c auses cha nge their  e ffec t s , b ut not vic e versa-  and hold s  amon g  m ereol ogi callyin dep enden t enti t ies , Cra ver (2 00 7) arg ues t ha t consti tution is a bidirection al ormutua l d ifference -ma k ing  relation  amo ng wholesand  so me of  th e ir sp atio t em por a l par ts.C orrespond i ng ly, h eproposes at h e ory  of c ons t itutio n th at adds a parthoo d  and a mutuali ty t w e aktoW oodw ar d's interventi oni st t heory of  c ausation. S ubject t oC raver 's (20 07, 15 3) mutu a l  m a nipula bili tytheory (M M),  t h e behav io rΦ  of aspat io tempor al par t X of S  constitutes S's  Ψ-in g ∗Fort h com ing i nPhiloso p hy o f Science.  †Dept. ofPhilos ophy , Uni versity  o f Gene va.  E mail: mich a el.baumga rtner @unige. ch  ‡De pt.  of Ph ilos o p hy, U nive rs ity  of Genev a .  E m ai l: lor enzo .casi ni @uni ge.ch 1 2 MichaelBau m gartner  a ndL o renzoC as i n i iff it i s p ossib l e  to (ideal l y) i n te r vene(fromthe bo ttom up )  on  X 's
 common_causes. The_best explanation for this_common-cause coupling_is_the existence_of_an additional dependence_relation, viz. constitution._Apart from adequately capturing_the essential characteristics_of_constitution missed by MM, NDC has important ramifications for constitutional discovery-most notably, that there_is_no experimentum_crucis_for_constitution, not even under ideal_discovery circumstances. 1 Introduction According_to mechanistic_theories of explanation, the upper (macro) level behavior_Ψ_of a system_S is explained by carving out the lower (micro)_level mechanism constituting that behavior (Glennan_1996; Machamer et_al._2000;_Craver 2007). Hence, a_theory of mechanistic explanation presupposes a_theory of constitution providing criteria that_identify those of S's spatiotemporal parts whose_activities are constitutively relevant to S's_Ψ-ing. The most popular theory_of constitution,_due to Craver (2007), purports_to furnish such_criteria by_drawing on conceptual_and methodological resources that have proven_valuable in analyzing_and discovering causation-notwithstanding the fact that_constitution_and causation are_very_different_relations (Craver_and Bechtel 2007)._Since_the time_of_Mill (1843), one of the dominant_approaches_to uncovering causation consists in intervening on_causes (in controlled environments)_to_test whether they make_a difference to their purported_effects. As is well-known, Woodward (2003)_has built_his influential_interventionist theory of causation on the fundament of this experimental protocol._While causation is a unidirectional difference-making_relation-i.e. causes change their_effects, but_not_vice versa- and_holds_among mereologically_independent entities, Craver (2007) argues that constitution_is a_bidirectional or mutual difference-making relation among_wholes and some of_their_spatiotemporal parts. Correspondingly, he proposes a_theory of constitution that adds a_parthood and a mutuality tweak_to_Woodward's_interventionist theory of causation. Subject_to Craver's (2007, 153) mutual manipulability_theory (MM), the_behavior Φ of a spatiotemporal partX of_S_constitutes S's Ψ-ing ∗Forthcoming in Philosophy_of_Science. †Dept. of Philosophy, University of_Geneva._Email:_michael.baumgartner@unige.ch ‡Dept. of Philosophy, University_of Geneva. Email: lorenzo.casini@unige.ch 1 2_Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini iff it is possible_to (ideally) intervene_(from the bottom up) on_X's