Brian Fay - General Laws and Explaining Human Behaviour
● Three theses of essay:
○ explanations of behaviour in terms of its reasons rest upon general laws
because such explanations are causal in nature
○ it is unlikely that these general laws are statable in the intentionalist
vocabulary of the social sciences
○ the social sciences must be genuinely theoretical if they are to be viable
● Despite the fact that general laws cannot be stated conventionally, there remains a viable
theoretical science of human behaviour - critical theory
● Singularity thesis claims that reason-explanations can account for human behaviour
without implying general laws
● This thesis is supported by two arguments
○ the logical-connection argument claims that behaviour is explained by
principles of actions, and that there is a logical relation between the outcome and the
principle, rather than a general, recurring pattern. It claims that explanation involves
specifying the reasons that rationalise an action
■ but there is a difference between there being ‘a’ reason
you might act and ‘the’ reason that actually motivates you to act
■ so the argument is only successful insofar as the given
reasons actually motivate - they may be sufficient but not necessary, or necessary
but not sufficient. So they must actually motivate i.e. be causal
● BOTH Humean ‘constant conjunction’
and the supposedly non-lawlike realist ‘causal mechanism’ theory
assume general laws - in the latter case, because if it were not outline
under precisely which conditions the mechanism is applicable, it would
not be a full explanation
● BOTH also rely upon generalizations -
for Humeans, causal explanations are a type of generalization, for
realists, generalizations indicate the existence of mechanisms
○ the essential-nature argument claims that a good explanation of a
phenomena relies upon an account of the nature of the entities involved
■ e.g.. in the case of a practical reasoning process, an
action can be explained by the nature of the decision making process - given this,
the specific action was inevitable
■ we don’t need to reformulate a particular instance into a
generalization with the use of substitute letters like x, y and z
■ This is because reasoning can be functional - e.g.
someone dances because they seek to dance
■ for this reason we tend to be interested in the conditions
under which the function doesn’t operate
■ functional characterizations are so because we see order
in them and hence assume general laws can describe them. thus the essential
nature argument fails. fucking duh.
● So, reason-explanations view actions as the causal outcome of mental events. Because
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller patrickfleming. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.