Title
How Not To Save Searle: A Reply To Weber'S Reply
Keywords
John Searle; money; reduction; social kinds; social-scientific laws
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. © The Author(s) 2012.
Publication Date
9-1-2012
Publication Title
Philosophy of the Social Sciences
Volume
42
Issue
3
Number of Pages
445-448
Document Type
Note
Personal Identifier
scopus
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393112440798
Copyright Status
Unknown
Socpus ID
84864711663 (Scopus)
Source API URL
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84864711663
STARS Citation
D'Amico, Robert and Butchard, William, "How Not To Save Searle: A Reply To Weber'S Reply" (2012). Scopus Export 2010-2014. 4524.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/scopus2010/4524