arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Reply to Moehler

Katharina Nieswandt

Philosophy of the Social Sciences2025https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251314866article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Recently and in this journal, I published a paper titled “Instrumental Rationality in the Social Sciences,” which offered a new argument against the equation of practical rationality with sound means-end reasoning. My paper attracted a critical commentary by Michael Moehler to which I reply here, without presupposing familiarity with my paper or Moehler’s comments. The critique is shown to rest on misunderstandings. Neither does my argument require that means-end reasoning always be egoistic nor can opponents, such as rational choice theorists, avoid it by re-categorizing sound means-end inferences as only one rational kind of practical inference among many.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251314866

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{katharina2025,
  title        = {{Reply to Moehler}},
  author       = {Katharina Nieswandt},
  journal      = {Philosophy of the Social Sciences},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931251314866},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Reply to Moehler

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.