Reply to Tuomela

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. Keywords analytic philosophy, essentialism, explanation, journal standards, open society Tuomela suggests on the first page of his response that my review is not about his book at all. It is merely an attempt to push my views. Apparently on his view a reviewer should not discuss the place of the method used by the author in an historical context, much less contrast that method with alterna-tives, and certainly not argue that some alternatives are better. If I understand him, he holds that a proper review must conduct a discussion of the reviewed book solely in terms of the conditions set by the author. Apparently other reviews of his book have done that and come to quite positive appraisals of his work. This is certainly in order and I congratulate him on his fine success in this regard. But any restriction of reviews to this procedure is unaccepta-ble in any society that values open and critical discussion of alternatives. Th