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

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (3):445-448 (2012)

Robert D'Amico
University of Florida
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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/0048393112440798
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,683
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Physical and Mental? Reply to John Searle.Anthonie W. M. Meijers - 2000 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 8 (2):179 – 183.
Intentionality and Computationalism: Minds, Machines, Searle and Harnad.Michael G. Dyer - 1990 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2:303-19.
What's Really Going on in Searle's 'Chinese Room'.Georges Rey - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 50 (September):169-85.
Un chiarimento.Franco Gori - 2010 - Augustinianum 50 (2):575-576.


Added to PP index

Total views
40 ( #198,621 of 2,242,826 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #201,216 of 2,242,826 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature