How Not to Save Searle: A Reply to Weber's Reply

    Authors

    R. D'Amico;W. Butchard

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at [email protected]

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Philos. Soc. Sci.

    Keywords

    John Searle; social-scientific laws; reduction; money; social kinds; Ethics; Philosophy

    Abstract

    In response to "'Counting As' a Bridge Principle: Against Searle Against Social-Scientific Laws," Elijah Weber distinguishes two sorts of physical open-endedness and claims our article appeals to the wrong sort. We clarify that Searle's notion of physical open-endedness is neither of the notions Weber introduces, thus our original reply to Searle is not targeted by Weber's objections. Also, Weber's lengthy example concerning counterfeit currency appears to build-in the extremely contentious assumption that scientific laws are impossible if and when relevant conditions do not happen to obtain.

    Journal Title

    Philosophy of the Social Sciences

    Volume

    42

    Issue/Number

    3

    Publication Date

    1-1-2012

    Document Type

    Editorial Material

    Language

    English

    First Page

    445

    Last Page

    448

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000307111700006

    ISSN

    0048-3931

    Share

    COinS
     

    Accessibility Statement

    This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2027, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.