<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reply to Daniel Steel's With or Without Mechanisms</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy of the social sciences</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">267–270</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this discussion note I clarify the motivation behind my original paper Social Mechanisms, Causal Inference and the Policy Relevance of Social Science. I argue that one of the tasks of philosophers of social science is to draw attention to methodological problems that are often forgotten or overlooked. Then I show that my original paper does not make the mistake or fallacy that Daniel Steel suggests in his comment on it.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>