Advertisement

Epistemology and the Study of Social Information Within the Perspective of a Unified Theory of Information

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 34)

Abstract

Within the framework of the Unified Theory of Information (UTI) developed by the present author, knowledge is a part of social information. More specifically, social information is defined as any information appearing in social, or human, systems.

The study of social information has methodological implications. Its methodology is partly an application of generalisations of findings of the discipline that studies social information – which means it is an application of the theoretical considerations of the discipline to further research – and partly an application of epistemology to the constitution of scientific knowledge in the field – which means it is an application of philosophical considerations to the discipline.

On the other hand, epistemology deals with general features of social information and so needs the feedback from the discipline that studies it.

This chapter shows how epistemology and the study of social information are linked to each other within the perspective of UTI. In the first section, epistemology provides foundations for the methodology of social information studies. This involves discussions of ontological and praxiological issues, the way of transdisciplinary thinking, the relation of explanation and understanding, and semiotic notions. In the second section, these foundations are applied to social information studies. Social information is embedded in an evolution of information-generating processes of self-organising systems. It is this evolution from which meaning originates. It is argued that knowledge is located in the universe of cognitive, communicative, and co-operative information in social systems.

Keywords

Good Life Social Information Science Perspective Downward Causation Informational Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Archer, M. 2007. Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. 2012. The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. Toronto: Chandler.Google Scholar
  4. Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against method. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  5. Hempel, C.G., and P. Oppenheim. 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15(2): 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hofkirchner, W. 2002. Projekt Eine Welt: Kognition – Kommunikation – Kooperation. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Hofkirchner, W. 2011a. Does computing embrace self-organisation? In Information and computation, ed. M. Burgin and G. Dodig-Crnkovic, 185–202. Hackensack: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  8. Hofkirchner, W. 2011b. Four ways of thinking in information. triple-c 9(2): 322–331.Google Scholar
  9. Hofkirchner, W. 2013a. Emergent information – when a difference makes a difference. triple-c 11(1): 6–12.Google Scholar
  10. Hofkirchner, W. 2013b. Emergent information. A unified theory of information framework. Hackensack: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jantsch, E. 1987. Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte der Selbstorganisation natürlicher Systeme. In Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus, ed. S.J. Schmidt, 159–191. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Maturana, H.R. 1995. The nature of time. http://www.inteco.cl/biology/nature.htm. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  13. Maturana, H.R., and F. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayr, E. 1974. Teleological and teleonomic: A new analysis. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIV: 91–117. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morin, E. 1992. The nature of nature. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K.R. 1935. Logik der Forschung. Wien: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popper, K.R. 1973. Objektive Erkenntnis. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Google Scholar
  18. Prigogine, I. 1980. From being to becoming. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  19. Sandkühler, H.J. 1990. Onto-Epistemologie. In Europäische Enzyklopädie zu Philosophie und Wissenschaften, ed. H.J. Sandkühler, 608–615. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  20. Sandkühler, H.J. 1991. Die Wirklichkeit des Wissens. Geschichtliche Einführung in die Epistemologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Tomasello, M. 2009. Why we cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Zimmermann, R.E. 2002. Kritik der interkulturellen Vernunft. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Design and Technology AssessmentVienna University of TechnologyWienAustria

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options