Was sollen wir tun? Was dürfen wir glauben? - bei DuEPublico ...

REGULARITY THEORIES OF CONSTITUTION COMPARED 133
requirement of symmetry of the constitution relation. However, since the symmetry of the
mechanistic structure is problematic (see Section 6.2), a pertinent additional constraint on
constitutive regularities is required. Harbecke excluded the occurrence of spurious
regularities with condition (ii) of his definition. This solution is analogous to certain
proposals that have been put forward for regularity theories of causality.
Finally, it was shown that Couch leaves somewhat vague the specific relation that
mechanisms, properties and individuals have to another. This is not necessarily a drawback of
the theory, but requires clarification at some point. Harbecke had to postulate the
mereological part-whole relation between individuals as primitive. However, on the basis of
this step, he was able to establish a systematic relationship between to-be-explained
phenomena, the mechanisms constituting them, as well as the properties and individuals
figuring in these.
With these differences a certain comparative advantage of Harbecke’s approach suggests
itself with respect to Couch’s theory, even if both theories largely agree in their basic
positions. Since regularity theories were presented as successfully competing with
manipulationist theories of mechanistic constitution, Harbecke’s definition proves to be the
currently most adequate approach for the reconstruction of mechanistic explanations in
neurobiology.
8. Conclusion
This paper investigated the relation between the two regularity theories of mechanistic
constitution by Harbecke (2010) and Couch (2011). After some introductory remarks on the
position of the theories within the broader mechanistic approach, the definitions were
compared for their similarities and differences. As a final conclusion, it was argued that
Harbecke’s theory has a comparative advantage over Couch’s regardless of the extensive
overlap in views between the two approaches.
At this point, a detailed analysis of the implications of these results for the manipulationist
theory of constitution has not been developed. Moreover, an adequacy test of for the
suggestions discussed in this paper with respect to actual neurobiological theories and
explanations, e.g. regarding the possibility of spurious regularities (see Section 6.3), is still
pending. These questions and issues should be considered in future research on regularity
theories of mechanistic constitution.
Jens Harbecke
Philosophy of Science
Witten/Herdecke University
jens.harbecke@uni-wh.de
References
Bliss, T. and T. Lømo 1973. ‘Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate
area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path’, Journal of
Physiology 232, 331–356.
Bliss, T. and G. Collingridge 1993: ‘A synaptic model of memory: long-term potentiation in
the hippocampus’, Nature 361(6407), 31–39.
Couch, M. 2011: ‘Mechanisms and constitutive relevance’, Synthese 183(3), 375-388.
Craver, C. 2007: Explaining the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.