Context-Dependence in Searle’s Impossibility Argument

Abstract

John Searle claims that social-scientific laws are impossible because social phenomena are physically open-ended. William Butchard and Robert D'Amico have recently argued that, by Searle's own lights, money is a social phenomena that is physically closed. However, Butchard and D'Amico rely on a limited set of data in order to draw this conclusion, and fail to appreciate the implications of Searle's theory of social ontology with regard to the physical openendedness of money. Money is not physically open-ended in the strong sense that Butchard and D'Amico require, and their argument for the possibility of social-scientific laws fails as a result.