Abstract

Of the six complaints that Professor Prasad lodges against my article, three are complaints about general remarks I make, two of which are from my unpublished abstract. Of these three, one incorrectly rejects my evaluation of the tone of his article; the second misattributes a claim from the abstract to the beginning of the article, rejects the claim without support, and mistakenly asserts that my claim is unsupported; and the third mistakenly rejects a characterization I make of Strawson's position. Of the three purported claims that Professor Prasad entertains (and rejects) from the main body of my article, only one turns out to be a claim I actually make, and his rejection of it is mistaken. In my article I examine Professor Prasad's original arguments in some detail, asserting that they can be grouped into seven types of argument and that four of them are directly aimed at Strawson's four types of argument in support of optimistic determinism. I then assert that three of Prasad's four types succeed and one fails. Of the three remaining types, one succeeds, and the others fail. None of these assertions draws substantial comment in Professor Prasad's response.