Witti-Buch2 2001.qxd - Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society

Jonas Larsson
comparison, then some non-rational factors, such as psycho-sociological factors, are
assumed to override her/his predisposition to judge correctly, i.e. in compliance with the
rule. Hence, given the pursuit of the epistemologically superior theory, rationalists
conclude that psychological and sociological explanations are appropriate only when the
relevant principles of comparison are applied wrongly (Newton-Smith 1981). At stake in
Bloor's critique of rationalism is whether the rationalists can uphold their asymmetrical
styles of explanation. The symmetry requirement, proposed by the Strong Programme,
states that the sociologists should provide social explanations of actions, judgements,
beliefs and inferences independently of whether the actions are rational or irrational, of
whether the judgements and beliefs are true or false, or of whether the inferences are
valid or invalid (Bloor 1991). I shall begin my investigation of finitism and its significance
for a sociological understanding of concept application by explaining why Bloor rejects
explanations based on rules and concepts.
Finitism and Determinism
One way to approach fundamental questions about meaning, favoured by the advocates
of finitism, is to ask what determines the proper usage of an empirical term. According
to Barnes, Bloor and Henry, all that finitism insists upon is that neither the meaning of a
term nor the way it has been previously used or defined will fix its future proper usage
(1996: 78). Put differently, finitism denies that an empirical term comes with a standard
of correctness that fixes reference independently of its application. Its oppositedeterminism
-maintains the converse view: that there are use-independent standards
that determine reference. Let me now explain how Bloor's rejection of rational
explanations is related to the thesis of finitism.
There are two conditions-one subjective and one objective-that must be fulfilled if
determinism is to be maintained. The objective condition states that whatever
determines the future proper use of an empirical term must fix a conceptual constraint
that applies in an indefinite number of cases. The subjective condition states that
whatever is supposed to determine the future proper use of an empirical term must be
something to which beings with finite capacities can conform.
Now, assume in line with determinism that there is a standard of correctness related
to an empirical term that fixes a conceptual constraint to which finite beings can conform.
On the basis of these assumptions one might explain why an individual applies an
empirical term correctly by saying that s/he perceived the import of the conceptual
constraint and applied the term accordingly. However, the advocates of finitism argue
that the objective and the subjective condition cannot both be satisfied. The argument is
14