@article {Leuridan2012,
	title = {What are mechanisms in social science? (review)},
	journal = {Metascience},
	volume = {21},
	number = {2},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {395-398},
	abstract = {<p>Why should we introduce the notion of analytical sociology into the field of sociology, and why should it be linked to the concept of mechanism? With these two principal questions, Pierre Demeulenaere, Professor of Sociological Theory and Philosophy of the Social Sciences at the University of Paris-Sorbonne, opens his Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms, a collection of thirteen papers written by social scientists and philosophers of the social sciences (1). Not every contributor should be considered an analytical sociologist. Rather than being a manifesto either pro or contra analytical sociology and the use of mechanisms, it is an attempt to reflect upon the key issues involved in sociological explanation (3). Even though several chapters raise very interesting points, the overall impression one gets from this book is that analytical sociology fails to redeem its main promise, viz. to add clarity, precision, and conceptual rigor to sociology, especially regarding one of it</p>},
	issn = {0815-0796},
	doi = {10.1007/s11016-011-9610-9},
	author = {Leuridan, Bert}
}
@article {1905403,
	title = {Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification},
	journal = {Philosophy of Science},
	volume = {78},
	number = {4},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {558{\textendash}578},
	abstract = {<p>Sober (2008) has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober{\textquoteright}s restrictions on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable, but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain theoretical desiderata (in particular, unification). Likewise, Sober{\textquoteright}s critique of the arguments from imperfections and from evil against design is off the mark.</p>},
	issn = {0031-8248},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661753},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661753},
	author = {Boudry, Maarten and Leuridan, Bert}
}
