In this paper I first give a summary and modification of an analysis of human action for which I have argued elsewhere ( No s, Vol. 2 [1968], No. 2). I then distinguish true, correct and applicable descriptions of actions and propose a thesis by which a single action may be correctly described by more than one description. Finally, I state and argue against the thesis of a paper of A. B. Cody's ( Inquiry, Vol. 10 [1967], No. 2), according (...) to which a single action can be correctly described by no more than one description. (shrink)

In this paper, 1 reply to A. R. Miller's ?Correct vs. ?Merely True? Act?Descriptions? (this issue). I explain that my distinction between true and correct descriptions of human behavior does not turn on the notion of an ?unbound action?, and hence is not circular in the way Miller suggests. I also discuss his claim that the way I have drawn the distinction leads to ?certain unacceptable consequences for action theory?

This paper is a reply to criticism made by A. B. Cody ('Is ?Human Action?; a Category??, Inquiry, Vol. 14 [1971], No. 4) of earlier papers by the author ('On Describing Actions?, Inquiry, Vol. 13 [1970], Nos. 1?2, and ?Action?, No?s, Vol. 2 [1968], No. 2). For brevity, familiarity is presupposed not only with the three papers just mentioned, but also with Cody, ?Can a Single Action Have Many Different Descriptions?? Inquiry, Vol. 10 (1967), No. 2; R. E. Dowling, ? (...) ?Can an Action Have Many Descriptions?"?? Inquiry, Vol. 10 (1967), No. 4; and Cody, ?A Reply to Mr. Dowling?, ibid. (shrink)