"We may or may not believe that the natural sciences will succeed one day in explaining the production of definite ideas, judgments of value, and 
actions in the same way in which they explain the production of a chemical compound as the necessary and unavoidable outcome of a certain combination 
of elements. In the meantime we are bound to acquiesce in a methodological dualism." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/308#Mises_0068_72)

I do not agree that Mises is "ducking" this problem: he addresses
it head on, and in a way that more than half a century later most
social scientists continue to adopt.  I suspect a case could even
be made that Mises would have been sympathetic to Davidson's
anomalous monism.

Alan Isaac


Rob Tye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Contra Per Bylund, surely the  psychological and social dynamics associated
> with brain activity lie way beyond contemporary science, and the Mises
> definition ducks these problems by retreating into ordinary language