Reply to Tuomela

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):518-522 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Raimo Tuomola has complained that my critical review of his The Philosophy of Sociality is superficial, that I have not presented, even that I have misrepresented his work, and that I have neglected its virtues, which others have praised. I reject his complaint about the content of my review as unwarranted in an open society, as he demands that I take his work on his own terms. I defend my view of the place of his work in the analytic tradition, my analysis of his work as essentialist and not explanatory, my argument that his analytic method is weak, and my appraisal that the framework he offers for current social scientific research is not needed and not very useful

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

You must have thought this book was about you1: Reply to Daniel Dennett.John Dupré - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (3):691-8211.
Hacker's Complaint.Scott Soames - 2006 - Philosophical Quarterly 56 (224):426 - 435.
Reply to Psarros: Popper and chemistry. [REVIEW]F. Michael Akeroyd - 2000 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 31 (1):127-131.
Rejoinder to Soames. [REVIEW]Christopher Pincock - 2006 - Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 26 (1):77-86.
Reply to commentators.Timothy Williamson - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (4):945-953.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-11

Downloads
48 (#1,217,349)

6 months
3 (#1,844,187)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?