This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Steel, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

With or Without Mechanisms

A Reply to Weber

Michigan State University

This reply to Erik Weber's commentary agrees that mechanisms are important for causal inference in social science, but argues that Weber makes the mistake that was the main focus of my original essay: inferring that since a problem cannot be solved without mechanisms, it can be solved with them. As it stands, this inference is invalid since the problem might be unsolvable with or without mechanisms. Any claim about the usefulness of mechanisms for some purpose requires an adequate account of how mechanisms can actually fulfill that function, which Weber has not provided with regard to the issues he discusses.

Key Words: causal inference • mechanisms • extrapolation

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 3, 360-365 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0048393107303817


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Weber Reply to Daniel Steel's "With or Without Mechanisms" Philosophy of the Social Sciences, June 1, 2008; 38(2): 267 - 270. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Brante Explanatory and Non-explanatory Goals in the Social Sciences: A Reply to Reiss Philosophy of the Social Sciences, June 1, 2008; 38(2): 271 - 278. [Abstract] [PDF]