I appreciate this clarification. The point is indeed meant to be about, as you say, the empirical sciences. I agree that there can be arbitrarily sophisticated scientific theories concerning rational behaviour—just that these theories aren’t straight-forwardly continuous with the theories of natural science.
In case you haven’t encountered it and may be interested, the underdetermination problem associated with inferring to beliefs and desires from mere behaviour (that is, the interface between natural science and the study of rationality) has been considered in some depth by a number of people including notably Donald Davidson, eg in his (Essays on Actions and Events)[http://books.google.com/books/about/Essays_on_actions_and_events.html?id=Bj2HHI0c2RIC].
I appreciate this clarification. The point is indeed meant to be about, as you say, the empirical sciences. I agree that there can be arbitrarily sophisticated scientific theories concerning rational behaviour—just that these theories aren’t straight-forwardly continuous with the theories of natural science.
In case you haven’t encountered it and may be interested, the underdetermination problem associated with inferring to beliefs and desires from mere behaviour (that is, the interface between natural science and the study of rationality) has been considered in some depth by a number of people including notably Donald Davidson, eg in his (Essays on Actions and Events)[http://books.google.com/books/about/Essays_on_actions_and_events.html?id=Bj2HHI0c2RIC].