This release contains two complementary works that present a unified metaphysical framework. The Core Edition, Modal Spinoza: The Modal–Dependence Calculus (MDC), develops a formal system in quantified modal logic that demonstrates three central theorems: (i) every contingent chain of dependence terminates, (ii) the terminus is unique, and (iii) invariance grounds intelligibility. The framework shows that a single necessary Core underlies all contingent existence, deriving a modal form of substance monism from first principles rather than assumption. The Orbit Edition, The Law (...) of Stillness and Motion, is the conceptual and experiential counterpart. It expresses the same structure without formalism: Stillness as the invariant Core, Motion as the contingent Orbit, and meta-empirical awareness as the mode through which this structure is recognized in lived experience. Where MDC provides mathematical articulation, the Orbit Edition provides interpretive clarity. Together, the Core and Orbit Editions form a two-level presentation of a single metaphysical architecture—formal and experiential, structural and reflective—describing how all change depends on what does not change. The short Orbit Edition serves as an accessible entry point; the Core Edition provides the full technical foundation. (shrink)

Effective movement of goods throughout local and international supply chains depends much on Major Distribution Centers (MDCs). MDC operational performance has become a major factor influencing supply chain resilience and regional competitiveness as global distribution networks get more complicated and linked. Still, current studies provide scant direction on how to evaluate MDC performance using methodologies of structured, multi-dimensional analysis. This work closes this gap by using a hybrid approach to evaluate the operational performance of certain MDCs, combining a relational performance (...) analysis tool with a preference-based weighting method. Applied to a collection of exemplary distribution hubs, the framework allows a balanced analysis of both quantitative and qualitative elements over several performance criteria. The report offers practical insights for managers and academics trying to maximize MDC efficiency and helps current initiatives to improve the distribution infrastructure. It also provides a basis for more research on performance evaluation models inside the field of distributions. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine what is to be said in defence of Machamer, Darden and Craver’s (MDC) controversial dualism about activities and entities (Machamer, Darden and Craver’s in Philos Sci 67:1–25, 2000). We explain why we believe the notion of an activity to be a novel, valuable one, and set about clearing away some initial objections that can lead to its being brushed aside unexamined. We argue that substantive debate about ontology can only be effective when desiderata for an (...) ontology are explicitly articulated. We distinguish three such desiderata. The first is a more permissive descriptive ontology of science, the second a more reductive ontology prioritising understanding, and the third a more reductive ontology prioritising minimalism. We compare MDC’s entities-activities ontology to its closest rival, the entities-capacities ontology, and argue that the entities-activities ontology does better on all three desiderata. (shrink)

This paper develops a geometric semantics for metaphysics by showing how the Modal–Dependence Calculus (MDC) induces curvature, metric structure, and geodesic necessity across modal space. Dependence is interpreted as metaphysical curvature, invariance as a metric tensor, and necessity as the straightest (geodesic) trajectory in a governed modal field. The result is a field-theoretic account of grounding that unifies explanation, fundamentality, and modal stability under a single geometric framework. The paper also connects this structure to cognitive architecture via Path C and (...) the Semantic Artificial Intelligence Reactor (SAIR), illustrating how intelligence can be modeled as traversal within an externally governed semantic manifold. These developments collectively establish the conceptual foundation for Continuity Field Theory (CFT), a unified structural framework for metaphysics, logic, and cognition. (shrink)

Leuridan (2011) questions whether mechanisms can really replace laws at the heart of our thinking about science. In doing so, he enters a long-standing discussion about the relationship between the mech-anistic structures evident in the theories of contemporary biology and the laws of nature privileged especially in traditional empiricist traditions of the philosophy of science (see e.g. Wimsatt 1974; Bechtel and Abrahamsen 2005; Bogen 2005; Darden 2006; Glennan 1996; MDC 2000; Schaffner 1993; Tabery 2003; Weber 2005). In our view, Leuridan (...) misconstrues this discussion. His weak positive claim that mechanistic sciences appeal to generalizations is true but uninteresting. His stronger claim, that all causal claims require laws, is unsupported by his arguments. Though we proceed by criticizing Leuridan’s arguments, our greater purpose is to embellish his arguments in order to show how thinking about mechanisms enriches and transforms old philosophical debates about laws in biology and provides new insights into how generalizations afford prediction, explanation and control. (shrink)

In this paper, I critique two conceptions of mechanisms, namely those put forth by Stuart Glennan (Erkenntnis 44:49–71, 1996; Philosophy of Science 69:S342–S353, 2002) and Machamer et al. (Philosophy of Science 67:1–25, 2000). Glennan’s conception, I argue, cannot account for mechanisms involving negative causation because of its interactionist posture. MDC’s view encounters the same problem due to its reificatory conception of activities—this conception, I argue, entails an onerous commitment to ontological dualism. In the place of Glennan and MDC, I propose (...) a “modified conception” of mechanisms, which (a) obviates the problem of negative causation by reinterpreting MDC’s activities according to a “descriptivist” account, and (b) avoids MDC’s problem by postulating a monistic ontology of entities. Thus, by solving these problems, my modified conception offers a cogent, more adequate alternative to Glennan’s and MDC’s conceptions of mechanisms. (shrink)

My topic is the confluence of two recently active philosophical research programs. One research program concerns the metaphysics of realization. The other research program concerns scientific explanation in terms of mechanisms. In this paper I introduce a distinction between descriptive and explanatory approaches to realization. I then use this distinction to argue that a well-known account of realization, due to Carl Gillett, is incompatible with a well-known account of mechanistic explanation, due to Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl Craver (MDC, (...) Philos Sci 57: 1-25, 2000). This is surprising, not least of which because Gillett has cited MDC's work as evidence that his account of realization is the right way to think about realization in the sciences. (shrink)

In what follows, I suggest that it makes good sense to think of the truth of the probabilistic generalizations made in the life sciences as metaphysically grounded in stochastic mechanisms in the world. To further understand these stochastic mechanisms, I take the general characterization of mechanism offered by MDC :1–25, 2000) and explore how it fits with several of the going philosophical accounts of chance: subjectivism, frequentism, Lewisian best-systems, and propensity. I argue that neither subjectivism, frequentism, nor a best-system-style interpretation (...) of chance will give us what we need from an account of stochastic mechanism, but some version of propensity theory can. I then draw a few important lessons from recent propensity interpretations of fitness in order to present a novel propensity interpretation of stochastic mechanism according to which stochastic mechanisms are thought to have probabilistic propensities to produce certain outcomes over others. This understanding of stochastic mechanism, once fully fleshed-out, provides the benefits of allowing the stochasticity of a particular mechanism to be an objective property in the world, a property investigable by science, a way of quantifying the stochasticity of a particular mechanism, and a way to avoid a problematic commitment to the causal efficacy of propensities. (shrink)

We cannot but begin this volume with Wittgenstein’s famous remark that “Hegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different.” (MDC: p.157) This is, however, a casual remark, and it seems that we should not put too much emphasis on it. (For a discussion of how the remark should properly be understood, see Chapter 20.) In (...) compiling this collection of essays we adopted from this remark the idea that the problem of difference in identity is the common topic between Hegel and Wittgenstein. The remark presents a certain interplay (or, one might say, dialectics) of identity and difference. And it is questions of identity and difference between Hegel and Wittgenstein (with respect to certain aspects of their works, under certain interpretations, etc.) that are addressed by the essays in this volume. (shrink)

Mechanism schemata are one of the least understood parts of MDC’s account of mechanistic explanation. Relatedly, there is a common misconception that there is no place for abstraction in MDC mechanisms. These two problems can be remedied by looking more carefully at what MDC say both in their 2000 paper and elsewhere about schemata and abstraction, and by following up on a comment of Machamer’s indicating that Piaget was the inspiration for schemata. Darden’s work on mechanism discovery reveals an important (...) role for abstract mechanism schemata, not only as concise representations of known mechanisms, but also as hypotheses for how unknown mechanisms might work. Piaget’s schemata likewise both capture the developing child’s current state of knowledge, and serve as templates into which new experiences are fit. If we assume that mechanistic explanations should pick out real difference-makers, and that what makes a difference needn’t always be fine-grained details, we open up an explanatory role for abstract schemata to play. Schemata represent the coarser-grained features of mechanisms that are often among the most important difference-makers. In many contexts they might need to be supplemented with finer grained details in order to give an adequate explanation, but independent of those details, schemata remain explanatory in virtue of being part of the explanation. Detailed accounts of real difference-makers need not be seen as in competition with abstract models or generalizations. They can be combined in mechanistic explanations. (shrink)

Ethics is an important aspect of midwifery care. A code of ethics in midwifery can provide a general framework for ethical behavior among midwives and enhance the quality of midwifery services. However, there is no tool to assess adherence to codes of ethics in midwifery. This study aims to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of a tool to measure Adherence to the Code of Ethics in Midwifery (ACEM). This was a methodologic study based on the steps described by Waltz (...) for tool development. The concept of ethics and the codes of ethics were used to design the preliminary tool. Then qualitative and quantitative face and validity assessments were performed. The construct validity was assessed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on 200 samples through a cross-sectional study. The reliability was evaluated by stability and internal consistency assessment using the test re-test method and by intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) calculation. Absolute reliability was also measured by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEm) and minimum detectable change (MDC) indexes. Finally, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was implemented by another cross-sectional study on 200 samples using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and calculating the fit indexes of the model. Sampling was conducted using a convenience sampling method among midwives working in various departments (public hospitals, private hospitals, health centers, university faculty members, university staff, research centers, headquarters, and private offices) across four regions of Iran: North, South, East, and West. The sampling was carried out electronically via Google Forms, and the questionnaire link was distributed to eligible individuals through the university of medical sciences, the deputy of health and medical services, and medical council of the Islamic republic of Iran. The preliminary tool was developed with 92 items. After the face and content validity assessment, the items were reduced to 55. The validity assessment showed S-CVI = 0.94, I-CVR ranges > 0.88, Kappa *>0.6. These values ​​indicate that the tool has appropriate content validity. The EFA resulted in the design of the ACEM with 42 items in 4 factors including; “Professional commitment (17 items)”, “client-centered service (11 items)”, “Professional management (7 items)”, and “Standard services (7 items)”. These four factors explained 65.912% of the variance of ACEM. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the entire tool was 0.98 (CI 95%: 0.97–0.99) and Internal consistency with α-Cronbach calculation for the entire questionnaire was 0.98 Considering that it is above 0.8, it is very good reliability. The standard error of measurement) SEM (for the entire instrument is 0.74. This means that an individual’s score on the instrument may vary by ± 0.74 upon repeated testing. The minimum detectable change (MDC (for the entire instrument is 2.05, indicating that a change of at least 2.05 points is needed to be considered a true change beyond measurement error. Since the percentage of minimum detectable changes for each dimension and the entire instrument is less than 30%, this level of sensitivity is acceptable. The findings of the CFA were completely consistent with EFA and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) showed all fit indexes in the acceptable levels. The ACEM-42 is a valid and reliable tool to assess adherence to codes of ethics in midwifery practice. ACEM-42 can show the ethics-related gaps in midwifery services and so it can be used for improving ethics and quality of midwifery services. It could be integrated into routine practice or training programs and used to evaluate midwifery personnel. (shrink)

The idea at the core of the New Mechanical account of explanation can be summarized in the claim that explaining means showing ‘how things work’. This simple motto hints at three basic features of Mechanistic Explanation (ME): ME is an explanation-how, that implies the description of the processes underlying the phenomenon to be explained and of the entities that engage in such processes. These three elements trace a fundamental contrast with the view inherited from Hume and later from strict logical (...) empiricism (see Creath 2017), focused on epistemic and formal features of science and according to which issues concerning the kind of entities and processes that lie within a theory’s domain are extraneous to science and belong instead to ontology or metaphysics. Philosophers belonging to the new mechanical philosophy believe that the received view of scientific explanation (Hempel 2001), pivoting on the notion of law of nature, overshadows this insight. Since its origin in the 17th century, mechanical philosophy aimed to explain natural phenomena by reducing them to mechanisms. Traditional attempts to define the concept of mechanism involved the identification of a limited set of fundamental elements as, for instance, contact action, action at a distance, inertial motion (see e.g. Hesse 2005), and, more recently, transmission of a mark, or of a conserved quantity (see Frisch, this volume). The new mechanical philosophy rejects this austere characterization of mechanisms and mechanistic explanation and aim at providing a novel, philosophically rigorous explication of the concept of mechanism and of its role in scientific explanation and practice. ME has been adopted with profit in philosophy of special sciences (for instance in biomedical sciences, e.g. in the explanation of chemical transmission at synapses ((Machamer, Darden and Craver 2000), MDC henceforth); but also in social sciences, e.g. the three kinds of social mechanisms in Coleman’s analysis of Max Weber’s account of the role of the Protestant ethic in the growth of capitalism (Hedström and Swedberg 1998)), where exceptionless regularities are rarely ever found. In physics, it is generally possible to formulate explanations in law-based form, with the result that the plurality of explanatory forms might be overlooked. This should not come as a surprise, given that physics was the main inspiration for logical empiricists, and, in particular, Newtonian physics was a template for Hempel’s formulation of the covering law model. However, this situation is unfortunate, since, we will argue, knowing how things work is often part of the explanation of physical phenomena. In this chapter, we provide an introduction to the basic features of ME, with specific focus on its application to physics (section 1). The main part of the chapter is devoted to the defence of two theses: on the one hand, some domains of physics are not compatible with mechanistic reasoning and explanation (section 2); on the other hand, a comprehensive account of explanation in physics can’t dispense with ME (section 3). (shrink)

User location prediction in location-based social networks can predict the density of people flow well in terms of intelligent transportation, which can make corresponding adjustments in time to make traffic smooth, reduce fuel consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help build a green cycle low-carbon transportation green system. This paper proposes a Markov chain position prediction model based on multidimensional correction. Firstly, extract corresponding information from the user’s historical check-in position sequence as a position-position conversion map. Secondly, the influence of (...) check-in period, space distance, and other factors on the position prediction is linearly weighted and merged with the position prediction of the n-order Markov chain to construct MDC-MCM. Finally, we conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation of MDC-MCM using the dataset collected from Brightkite. Experimental results show that compared with other advanced location prediction technologies, MDC-MCM achieves better location prediction results. (shrink)

This article investigates how the semiotic tools socially shared have a role in psychological development of students enrolled in argumentative classes. The process of internalization is understood as a form of semiotic regulation, socially shared, that benefits the organization and structuring of higher mental functions. We use an argumentative instructional design inspired by the adaptation made by Leitão (2012) to the Critical Debate Model / MDC (Fuentes, 2011) to create an environment of systematic argumentation as a mediation resource for the (...) development of reflective thinking of students. In each cycle (5 debates), the students (38) are divided into three groups, who rotate to assume the roles of protagonists, antagonistics and judges/researchers – in every cycle there are activities to teach how to argue and argue to learn school content. Hence, they are systematically stimulated to exchange points of view rationally, evaluate arguments, question positions, produce arguments and anticipate counter-arguments. The workshop where teachers stimulated the teaching of argumentation for the purpose of developing argumentative competencies were qualitatively analyzed. The semiotic-discursive analysis of 12 cases (one of the three groups) indicates that there are three levels of regulatory agents: 1) the design, 2) the instruction of the teachers, 3) the reaction (understanding) of the students. And the regulators are divided into the dimensions of knowledge construction and pragmatic / rhetoric of the argument organized in: 1) macroregulators, which say of the general regulators present in the design and instruction and 2) local regulators, who say respect of the updated use of general regulators internally by students. Finally, it is proposed to think about the role of constructing argumentative class designs that take into account the complexity of semiotic dynamics in educational contexts. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine what is to be said in defence of Machamer, Darden and Craver’s controversial dualism about activities and entities (MDC 2000). We explain why we believe the notion of an activity to be a novel, valuable one, and set about clearing away some initial objections that can lead to its being brushed aside unexamined. We argue that substantive debate about ontology can only be effective when desiderata for an ontology are explicitly articulated. We distinguish three such (...) desiderata. The first is a more permissive descriptive ontology of science, the second a more reductive ontology prioritising understanding, and the third a more reductive ontology prioritising minimalism. We compare MDC’s entities-activities ontology to its closest rival, the entities-capacities ontology, and argue that the entities-activities ontology does better on all three desiderata. (shrink)

The chapter offers an analysis of the “Zimbabwe will never be a colony again” mantra that influenced the country’s foreign and domestic policies during Robert Mugabe’s rule (1987–2017). The chapter tackles the issue of sovereignty and its meaning in the context of Zimbabwe’s economic and political relations with the Western powers. Specifically, the chapter examines the contradictions that existed when Zimbabwe reacted to neocolonialism perceived to be driven by the West, yet putting the country under the economic and political control (...) of China and other Eastern actors. Thus, the chapter dismantles the myth of the country’s sovereignty. The use and abuse of history by the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) government in the name of fighting neocolonialism are also discussed. This is done through a comprehensive examination of the meaning of Zimbabwe’s independence in the 1980s against the 2000s. The chapter argues that Zimbabwe’s revival of nationalism against all forms of neocolonialism must be understood within the context of the emergence of the strong political opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in the late 1990s. Thus, in reality, perceived neocolonialism was not a threat to national identity but to ZANU-PF. The chapter uses existing secondary data as well as my insider’s perspective because of my proximity to the national processes. (shrink)

This essay argues that Catholic (magisterial) social teaching's division of ethics into public and private creates a structural lacuna which makes it almost impossible to envision a truly just situation for migrant domestic careworkers (MDCs) within the current horizon of Catholic social thought. Drawing on a variety of sociological studies, I conclude that it is easy for MDCs to “disappear” between two countries, two families, and, finally, two sets of ethical norms. If the magisterium genuinely wishes Catholic ethicists to address (...) the plight of these migrant women, normative Catholic social teaching must pay more attention to household sociological realities and more fully absorb the feminist critique of the sharp line between the public and the private, between care and paid work. (shrink)

In this thesis I examine a number of topics that bear on explanation and understanding in molecular and cell biology, in order to shed new light on explanatory practice in those areas and to find novel angles from which to approach relevant philosophical debates. The topics I look at include mechanism, emergence, cellular complexity, and the informational role of the genome. I develop a perspective that stresses the intimacy of the relations between ontology and epistemology. Whether a phenomenon looks mechanistic, (...) or complex, or indeed emergent, is largely an epistemic matter, yet has an objective basis in features of the world. After reviewing several concepts of mechanism I consider the influential recent account of Machamer, Darden and Craver (MDC). That account makes interesting proposals concerning the relationship between mechanistic explanation and intelligibility, which are consistent with the results of the investigation I undertake into the science surrounding protein folding. In relation to a number of other issues pertaining to biological systems I conclude that the MDC account is insufficiently nuanced, however, leading me to outline an alternative approach to mechanism. This emphasizes the importance of structure—function relations and addresses issues raised by reflection on the nature of cellular complexity. These include the distinction between structure and process and the different possible bases on which system organization may be maintained. The account I give of emergence construes the phenomenon in terms of psychological deficit: phenomena are emergent when we lack the capacity to trace through and model their causal structures using our cognitive schemas. I conclude by developing these ideas into a preliminary and partial account of explanation and understanding. This aspires to cover the significant fraction of work in molecular and cell biology that correlates biological structures, processes and functions by visualizing phenomena and making them imaginable. (shrink)

After a decade of intense debate about mechanisms, there is still no consensus characterization. In this paper we argue for a characterization that applies widely to mechanisms across the sciences. We examine and defend our disagreements with the major current contenders for characterizations of mechanisms. Ultimately, we indicate that the major contenders can all sign up to our characterization.

The notions of mechanism and mechanistic explanation have returned to center stage in contemporary philosophy of science. At the turn of the millennium, Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl Craver published a paper (‘MDC 2000’ for short) on mechanisms and mechanistic explanation in biology that initiated an extensive debate about mechanisms and mechanistic explanations in the philosophy of science more generally—and especially in the philosophy of the life sciences. Many authors subsequently contributed to the development and discussion of the new (...) mechanistic thinking, and the research is still ongoing. In this chapter, the core ideas and motivation of the new mechanistic approach are summarized. As it turns out, many of these core ideas come with certain metaphysical commitments. Does the new mechanistic approach support a non-reductive physicalist view of the mind, higher-level sciences, or everyday objects? In order to answer this question, one has to lay bare the metaphysical commitments of the new mechanistic approach and bring them together in a coherent theory. This is the purpose of this book. (shrink)