Social laws should be conceived as a special case of mechanisms: A reply to Daniel Little
Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter
I am grateful to Daniel Little for his insightful reply to my recent article in Social Epistemology (2012, 105-114) about what appears to be a flaw in Jon Elster’s conception of mechanisms. I agree with much of what Little says, but want to amplify a different underlying problem with Elster’s conception (fourth point below) than Little suggests in his reply (third point below). This underlying problem connects nicely with a passage in Little’s reply, which he thinks unconnected with the point on which I focus.
|Research areas and keywords||
Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY
|Journal||Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|
No data available