The supporting argument commits a non-sequitur: the absence of strict psychological laws entails only that reasons-explanations are not nomological, not that reasons are causally inert.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Nomological(The 'nomological' component of the DN model refers to the requirement that the explanans contain at least one essential law of nature): A philosophical term of art meaning roughly 'lawful', pertaining to laws of nature
Non-sequitur(describes the type of logical error Al-Farabi supposedly made): A logical fallacy where the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the reasons given—like saying 'the sky is blue, therefore pizza is delicious.'
causally inert(Used to characterize abstract objects in arguments against Platonism): Not capable of entering into causal relations; having no causal effects on the physical world
psychological laws(as used in philosophy of mind and action): Fixed rules about how the mind works that always produce the same results under the same conditions, like a scientific law in physics.

Based on where you are in your exploration