The Explanation of Behaviour was the first book written by the renowned philosopher Charles Taylor. A vitally important work of philosophical anthropology, it is a devastating criticism of the theory of behaviourism, a powerful explanatory approach in psychology and philosophy when Taylor's book was first published. However, Taylor has far more to offer than a simple critique of behaviourism. He argues that in order to properly understand human beings, we must grasp that they are embodied, minded creatures with purposes, (...) plans and goals, something entirely lacking in reductionist, scientific explanations of human behaviour. Taylor's book is also prescient in according a central place to non-human animals, which like human beings are subject to needs, desires and emotions. However, because human beings have the unique ability to interpret and reflect on their own actions and purposes and declare them to others, Taylor argues that human experience differs to that of other animals. Furthermore, the fact that human beings are often directed by their purposes has a fundamental bearing on how we understand the social and moral world. Taylor's classic work is essential reading for those in philosophy and psychology as well as related areas such as sociology and religion. This Routledge Classics edition includes a new Preface by the author and a new Foreword by Alva No, setting the book in philosophical and historical context. (shrink)

If dispositions are conceived as properties of systems that refer to possible causal relations, dispositions can be used in singular causal explanations. By means of these dispositional explanations, we can explain behavior B of a system x by (i) referring to a situation of type S that triggered B, given that x has a disposition D to do B in S, or (ii) by referring to a disposition D of x to do B in S, given that x is (...) in a situation of type S. Dispositional explanations are adequate and indispensable explanations: they can explain behavior B without explicitly referring to the underlying causal basis in x that constitutes a disposition to do B. Radical Behaviorist explanations are a sort of dispositional explanations, but the dispositional model is not restricted to these explanations. The dispositional model is compatible with, or can be applied to, several research programs. (shrink)

Most discussions of causal explanations of behavior focus on the problem of whether it makes sense to regard reasons as causes of human behavior, whether there can be laws connecting reasons with behavior, and the like. This essay discusses explanations of human behavior that do not appeal to reasons. Such explanations can be found in several areas of the social sciences. Moreover, these explanations are both causal and non-reductionist. Historical linguists, for example, offer causal explanations of (...) changes in how words are pronouncedand linguistic change in generalwithout appealing to human intentions. I use examples from linguistics, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology to discuss the importance of this sort of explanation and to examine its compatibility with recent philosophical accounts of causation. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to set forth a sense in which programs can and do explain behavior, and to distinguish from this a number of senses in which they do not. Once we are tolerably clear concerning the sort of explanatory strategy being employed, two rather interesting facts emerge; (1) though it is true that programs are "internally represented," this fact has no explanatory interest beyond the mere fact that the program is executed; (2) programs which are (...) couched in information processing terms may have an explanatory interest for a given range of behavior which is independent of physiological explanations of the same range of behavior. (shrink)

Causal explanations of behavior must distinguish two kinds of cause. There are triggering causes, the events or conditions that come before the effect and are followed regularly by the effect, and structuring causes, events that cause a triggering cause to produce its effect. Moving the mouse is the triggering cause of cursor movement; hardware and programming conditions are the structuring causes of cursor movement. I use this distinction to show how representational facts can be structuring causes of behavior (...) even though biological events trigger the behavior. (shrink)

A long series of studies in social psychology have shown that the explanations people give for their own behaviors are fundamentally different from the explanations they give for the behaviors of others. Still, a great deal of uncertainty remains about precisely what sorts of differences one finds here. We offer a new approach to addressing the problem. Specifically, we distinguish between two levels of representation ─ the level of linguistic structure (which consists of the actual series of words used in (...) the explanation) and the level of conceptual structure (which consists of the concepts these words are used to express). We then formulate and test hypotheses both about self-other differences in conceptual structure and about self-other differences in the mapping from conceptual structure to linguistic structure. (shrink)

This paper examines the status and role of modes of explanation of behavior in contemporary legal theory. It does so by reference to the criticism made by Sundram Soosay of the dominance of the conscious and deliberative mode of explanation in the work of Joseph Raz, H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Soosay's criticism is discussed and evaluated by reference to a reading of these three theorists. I argue for a pluralist and pragmatic approach to modes of explanations (...) of behavior, as opposed to one that conceives of representations of behavior as capable of offering true and verifiable descriptions of human nature. I illustrate the value of such pluralism and pragmatism by reference to Institutions of Law, the most recent work by Neil MacCormick. Ultimately, I call for a closer engagement by legal theorists with the issues taken up by the philosophy of the social sciences, and in particular, on its treatment of the question of the status and role of modes of explanation of behavior for the purpose of proposing social scientific hypotheses. (shrink)

The central issue that concerns Taylor is the opposition between the claims of mechanistic and teleological explanation of human behavior. This presupposes that we are clear about what is at issue here. The first part of this book is dedicated to a conceptual untangling of the skein of issues involved. Taylor then turns to a careful examination of the mechanistic type of explanation characteristic of behavioristically oriented psychologies. He argues that these fail to account adequately for distinctively (...) human behavior. But this does not decide the issue in favor of teleological explanation. Deciding between these two modes of explanation is an empirical matter, and the evidence is now insufficient for a definite answer. Though the conclusion is modest, the insight and subtlety displayed in Taylor's analysis make this an extremely important book for anyone who wants to get to the heart of the issue of a distinctive mode of explanation for human behavior.—R. J. B. (shrink)

Theories in the behavioral sciences are constrained so that stated relationships are empirically testable and explanations have predictive power. These constraints constitute the classical paradigm, and are trivial just when ?causal relationships? do not hold. It appears that such relationships do not hold for linguistic, and presumably other, behaviors, thus precluding study within the classical paradigm. This compels study of those behaviors in terms of the non?traditional approach to testability and explanation developed in Chomskyan linguistics. These constitute the grammatical (...) paradigm. The existence of two paradigms requires that any inquiry begin by determining which paradigm is appropriate. (shrink)

The author discusses mcdougall's position on the subject and the "concept of separate patterns of behaviour" in individual and general circumstance. The author concludes that mcdougall was interested in a scientific question concerning innate tendencies in humans but thinks mcdougall posited too many instincts. (staff).

Abstract.Legal philosophy must consider the way in which laws function as reasons for action. “Simple positivism” considers laws as merely reasons in the balance of reasons. Joseph Raz, as a representative of “sophisticated positivism,” argues that laws are exclusionary reasons for action, not merely reasons in the balance of reasons. This paper discusses Raz's arguments for his view. The Functional Argument provides no more reason for positivism than against it. The Phenomenological Argument is best supported by an account of how (...) character traits function in explaining behaviour. But then the distinction between exclusionary reasons and expressive reasons is obliterated. Legal positivism cannot absorb laws as expressive reasons for action. Raz's positivism implies the correctness of an anti‐positivistic legal theory. (shrink)

A certain analogy can be drawn between Hegel’s central views on material objects and Hegel’s views on persons. To an extent, Hegel himself indicates this analogy. Yet to date, surprisingly, no one has commented upon it. Various interpreters have suggested that Hegel is an opponent of Cartesian dualism, and, in this connection, that Hegel’s philosophy might offer useful commentary on problems about mind and body currently under discussion. A study of the analogy mentioned would make it possible to state just (...) how Hegel is an opponent of Cartesian dualism, and to show just what contribution Hegel has to make toward contemporary discussion. Such a study is the topic of the present paper. (shrink)

The author is primarily concerned with the explanation of behavior in regard to (1) the mecanical model, (2) the effects of physical-organic processes on behavior, (3) the lack of understanding between philosophers and psychologists as to sufficient conditions for predicting a behavioral event, (4) conditions leading to expalantions of behavior that could predict behavior exclusive of any antecedent psychological behavior, and (5) variations of the mechanical-model introducing differing sorts of explanation. (staff).

This paper examines Aristotle's notion of autonomy and its implication for the mechanicism/autonomy debate. We introduce the basic principles of Aristotle's scientific framework, including his theory of four causes for the explanation of nature. We draw parallels between these notions of autonomy and causation and autopoietic theory, dynamical systems and robotics, suggesting that they may be compatible with Aristotle's framework. We argue that understanding the problem of design of autonomous robots may benefit from the consideration of integration of Aristotle's (...) causes, while robotics, in turn, may contribute to the debate providing a common ground for epistemological and ontological notions of autonomy. (shrink)

It has been hypothesized that actors tend to attribute behavior to the situation whereas observers tend to attribute behavior to the person (Jones & Nisbett 1972). The authors argue that this simple hypothesis fails to capture the complexity of actual actor-observer differences in people’s behavioral explanations. A new framework is proposed in which reason explanations are distinguished from explanations that cite causes, especially stable traits. With this framework in place, it becomes possible to show that there are a (...) number of distinct actorobserver asymmetries in explanation, each stemming from a distinct psychological process by which explanations are generated. (shrink)

In ‘Three Varieties of Knowledge’, D. Davidson distinguishes three types of knowledge: knowledge of the self, of others’ thoughts, and knowledge of the world. He notes that the Cartesian tradition privileged the first type of knowledge believing that the other two could be derived from it. Against Cartesianism and logical positivism, Davidson maintains that these three modes of knowledge are irreducible, although complementary. I am particularly interested here in one of the arguments brought up by Davidson against the reduction of (...) any one of these modes of thoughts. I will begin my analysis with his views on the characterization and explanation of intentional behavior. according to Davidson, the normative character of rationality and of the concepts used in the characterization and explanation of behavior constitute an inevitable obstacle to their reduction to an explanation using nonnormative concepts, and more particularly, to strict laws. The thesis of the irreducibility of explanations by rationalizations of the explanatory type found in physics but also in biology and neurophysiology, refers, of course, to his theory of identity, and more particularly, to his third principle: the anomalism of the mental. As we all know, this doctrine has been the object of numerous debates in contemporary philosophy. However, it is not my intention to add to this debate. My goal is to examine whether the normative character of rationality, which is also an argument in support of the anomalism of the mental, can support the thesis of the irreducibility of explanations through reasons. (shrink)

This paper presents Sen's theory of agency, focusing on the role of commitment in this theory as both problematic and potentially illuminating. His account of some commitments as goal-displacing gives rise to a dilemma given the standard philosophical theory of agency.Eithercommitment-motivated actions are externally motivated, in which case they are not expressions of agency,orsuch actions are internally motivated, in which case the commitment is not goal-displacing. I resolve this dilemma and accommodate his view of commitment as motivation by developing a (...) broader descriptive theory of agency, which recognizes both agent goal-directed and goal-displacing commitments. I propose a type of goal-displacing commitment, which I call ‘tacit commitment’, that can be seen to fit between the horns. Tacit commitments regulate behaviour without being made conscious and explicit. This resolution suggests a means of bridging the normative/descriptive gap in social-scientific explanation. (shrink)

I argue that the criticisms made by d. h. mellor in 'mind', january, 1968, of two arguments central to charles taylor's thesis concerning teleological explanation in 'the explanation of behaviour' can readily be accommodated by taylor. in neither case is the argument used to make the distinction that mellor alleges.