Las consecuencias para la generación de leyes sociológicas del hecho de la contingencia social y/o de la libertad individual, podrían visualizarse a base de la resolución determinación vs. indeterminación de las mismas. Los enfoques paradigmáticos para abordar el tema de la determinación son: (..

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2008v12n1p1 My purpose is to postulate a principle, which I call “socioantropic”, that can connect in a proper way two historically antithetical notions: free will and determinism in the social word. The main consequence of this is the establishment of a new kind of explanatory structure more in keeping with the special nature of the social sciences. To this end, I shall reconstruct the conventional structure of deductive-nomological explanations, exposing its shortcomings in relation to the social sciences, and hence I (...) shall formulate a proposal for the theoretical resolution of the problem of explanation in the social world. (shrink)

My purpose is to postulate a principle, which I call “socioantropic”, that can connect in a proper way two historically antithetical notions: free will and determinism in the social word. The main consequence of this is the establishment of a new kind of explanatory structure more in keeping with the special nature of the social sciences. To this end, I shall reconstruct the conventional structure of deductive-nomological explanations, exposing its shortcomings in relation to the social sciences, and hence I shall (...) formulate a proposal for the theoretical resolution of the problem of explanation in the social world. (shrink)

In this work, it is argued that one of the foundations of NiklasLuhmann’s theory of social systems, namely that it has no ontology, would prevent the elaboration of explanations in sociology. Because the theory has a formal-logical foundation, which does not presuppose ontology, there are insurmountable obstacles to achieving this objective. For this reason, it is valid to wonder about the merit of a theory that, after 20 years, insists on not aligning itself with ontological premises in a robust way (...) and suggests, therefore, a refusal to integrate sociology within the set of factual sciences. However, we think that the richness of Luhmann’s work allows a dialogue with the mainstream of contemporary theoretical practice. Three rules about what “should not be done” are revalidated from this analysis to philosophically base a theory in sociology and a key suggestion to overcome the problem of explanation in Luhmann’s sociology: social science seeks and directs its activity towards discovery and the use of substantive, real distinctions that also enrich the factual content of statements about social reality. (shrink)

In this work, it is argued that one of the foundations of NiklasLuhmann’s theory of social systems, namely that it has no ontology, would prevent the elaboration of explanations in sociology. Because the theory has a formal-logical foundation, which does not presuppose ontology, there are insurmountable obstacles to achieving this objective. For this reason, it is valid to wonder about the merit of a theory that, after 20 years, insists on not aligning itself with ontological premises in a robust way (...) and suggests, therefore, a refusal to integrate sociology within the set of factual sciences. However, we think that the richness of Luhmann’s work allows a dialogue with the mainstream of contemporary theoretical practice. Three rules about what “should not be done” are revalidated from this analysis to philosophically base a theory in sociology and a key suggestion to overcome the problem of explanation in Luhmann’s sociology: social science seeks and directs its activity towards discovery and the use of substantive, real distinctions that also enrich the factual content of statements about social reality. (shrink)

This essay discusses three axioms of sociopoietic theory from the point of view of philosophy of social science. The first axiom, its de-ontologised character, it is associated to theory formalism and it allows to question the validity of a factual theory that do not presuppose the reality. Th..

This essay tries to synthesize some relevant issues on a classic topic, central for social sciences: social interaction. How is it possible for two or more human beings to build a system of a superior order, composed by elements with emergent properties which are only partially imputable to the indi..

El propósito de este ensayo consiste en aproximarse a una re–evaluación del enfoque negativo de la filosofía hegeliana en el marco de la discusión epistemológica de la ciencia contemporánea. La afirmación de Karel Kosik que sostiene que "En virtud de que la esencia –a diferencia de los fenómenos..