MANIFESTATIONS AS COMPONENTS

Florian Fischer

Overview

1. Finks & Masks

2. Alleged Solutions

3. The Fundamental Problem

4. Manifestations as Components

Preliminaries

• Neutral about bearers of dispositions

• Bracket chancy dispositions

• Bracket spontaneous dispositions

Ontology / Linguistics

Language

P(i): Sentence, predicate and individual constant

!

Ontology

E(o1): State of affairs, property, object

1. Finks & Masks

Dispositions

An object o has the disposition D iff it shows manifestation M under stimulus S.

!

D(o) ↔ (S(o) → M(o))

Finks

The conditions for gaining or losing a disposition can be the same as the stimulus.

Masks

The manifestation can be prevented although the disposition and the stimulus are present.

2. Alleged Solutions

Choi & Gundersen

Complex dispositions

An object loses its simple disposition and instead gains the complex disposition to show the manifestation when stimulated in absence of masks.

!

☞ Extrinsic dispositions

Manley & Wasserman

Comparative disposition ascriptions

Object o is fragile in C, iff enough circumstances C are such, that o breaks.

!

☞ Weighting of the Cs.

Fara

Habituals

Universal generalisations, which admit exceptions.

!

☞ Ceteris paribus clauses

3. The Fundamental Problem

Conditionalizations

A dispositions does not simply lead to manifestation under given stimulus, but only when x.

!

☞ The scope of the disposition is reduced

Problems of Conditionalizations

Epistemic problem

Explanation gaps

!

Ontological problem

Outlaw areas

Millikan’s oil drop experiment

4. Manifestations as Components

– Nancy Cartwright 2008

‚What matters for capacities is the threefold distinction Hume denied between the obtaining

of the capacity [. . .], the manifestation or exercise of the capacity (the attracting), and the

'occurrent-property' behavior.‘

Different cases

A. The oil drop does not move, because there is no manifestation present.

B. The oil drop moves because there is only gravitational pull.

C. The oil drop does not move, because there are both the gravitational and the electrical pull.

Types of Dispositions

Conventional dispositions

Object o has the disposition D.

!

Canonical dispositions

Object o has the disposition to M, when S.

Lewis’ two step conception

1. Explain conventional dispositions through (a group of) canonical dispositions.

2. Conceptual analysis of canonical dispositions.

Fundamental Dispositions

A special subset of the canonical dispositions.

Three step conception

1. Explain conventional dispositions through (a group of) canonical dispositions.

2. Fundamental dispositions as truth makers of canonical dispositions.

3. Conceptual analysis of fundamental dispositions.

Components

Dispositions manifest to the same components in every circumstance, but this results in different behaviour, depending on the other components present. A component always adds the same contribution to the resulting behaviour.

Isolated manifestations

Ideal case

Only epistemically special. The contribution the component makes to the behaviour happens to be the only contribution in the ideal case.

Interactions of Components

Manifestation Other Manifestations Resulting Behaviour

M1 ∅ B1

M1 M2 B2

M1 M2 & M3 B1

M1 … …

Spatial arrangement

Spatial location and orientation are not powers themselves, but are nevertheless causally relevant.

They are not causally operative, according to Molnar, but still ‚affect the outcomes of the workings of the powers‘.

Interactions of Components

Manifestation Other Manifestations Arrangement Resulting

Behaviour

M1 ∅ A1 B1

M1 M2 A1 B2

M1 M2 A2 B3

M1 … … …

Components

• Localised in space-time.

• The summands of behaviour.

• Come with inbuilt interaction rules.

Thank you for the time!