Erkenntnis

, Volume 79, Supplement 8, pp 1393–1412 | Cite as

Scientific Processes and Social Processes

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 208 Downloads

Abstract

We clarify the notions scientific process and social process with structuralist means. Three questions are formulated, and answered in the structuralistic, set-theoretic framework. What is a scientific process, and a process in science? What can be meant by a non-social process? In which sense a non-social process can be a part of a scientific process in social science? We are specifically interested in social processes. Our answers use the notion of the generalized subset relation applied to set-theoretical structures, and the set of structuralistically reconstructed empirical theories.

Keywords

Social process Scientific process Process Theory Structure Neighbourhood 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balzer, W. (1985). Theorie und Messung. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer, W., & Manhart, K. (2011). A social process in science and its content in a simulation programm. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(4).Google Scholar
  3. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1987). An architectonic for science. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balzer, W., Lauth, B., & Zoubek, G. (1993). A model for science kinematics. Studia Logica, 52, 519—548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balzer, W., Sneed, J. D., & Moulines, C. U. (eds.) (2000). Structuralist knowledge representation—paradigmatic examples. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and humanities, Vol. 75. Amsterdam: Atlanta.Google Scholar
  6. Balzer, W., & Zoubek, G. (1994). Structuralist aspects of idealization. In: Kuokkanen, M. (ed.) Idealization VII: Structuralism, idealization and approximation. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, Vol. 42 (pp. 57–79). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  7. Beth, E. W. (1948/49). Analyse Sémantique des théories physiques. Synthese, 7(3), 206–207.Google Scholar
  8. Bloor, D. (1996). Scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourbaki, N. (2004). Theory of sets. Berlin: Springer (first printing of the softcover edition: 1968).Google Scholar
  10. Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. Network models of social structure, perception, and action. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coldony, R. G. (ed.) (1972). Paradigms and paradoxes. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  12. Diederich, W., Ibarra, A., & Mormann, T. (1989). Bibliography of structuralism 1971–1988. Erkenntnis, 30, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diederich, W., Ibarra, A., & Mormann, T. (1994). Bibliography of structuralism II 1989–1994 and additions. Erkenntnis, 41, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gärdenfors, P. (1990). Induction, conceptual spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science, 57, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Genesereth, M. R., & Ketchpel, S. P. (1994). Software agents. Communications of the ACM, 37, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. González-Ruiz, A. (1998). Die Netzwerktheorie der Handlung von R. S. Burt: Eine strukturelle und epistemologische Analyse. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement, Vol. 1. New York.Google Scholar
  20. Krohn, W., & Küppers, G. (1987). Die Selbstorganisation der Wissenschaft. Wissenschaftsforschung, Report 33, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  21. Lauth, B. (2002). Transtheoretical structures and deterministic models. Synthese, 130, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ludwig, G. (1991). Die Grundstrukturen einer physikalischen Theorie. Berlin: Springer. (1. ed. 1978).Google Scholar
  23. Rott, H. (2006). Revision by comparison as a unifying framework: Severe withdrawal, irrevocable revision and irrefutable revision. Theoretical Computer Science, 355(2), 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salmon, W. (1984). Explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. van Fraassen, B. C. (1970). On the extension of Beth’s semantics of physical theories. Philosophy of Science, 37, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westermann, R. (2000). Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance: A structuralist theory-net. In W. Balzer, J. D. Sneed, C. U. Moulines (Eds.), Structuralist knowledge representation—paradigmatic examples. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and humanities, Vol. 75 (pp. 189–217). Amsterdam: Atlanta.Google Scholar
  29. Wooldridge, M. (2009). An introduction to multiagent systems (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1999). The cooperation problem—solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(4), 563–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woolgar, S. (1981). Interests and explanation in the social study of science. Social Studies of Science, 11, 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations