A model-based approach to social ontology

IF 0.4 1区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Philosophy of the Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-11-24 DOI:10.1177/00483931211056952
Matti Sarkia
{"title":"A model-based approach to social ontology","authors":"Matti Sarkia","doi":"10.1177/00483931211056952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues for theoretical modeling and model-construction as central (but not necessarily the only) types of activities that philosophers of social ontology (in the analytic tradition) engage in. This claim is defended through a detailed case study and revisionary interpretation of Raimo Tuomela’s account of the we-perspective. My interpretation is grounded in Ronald Giere’s account of scientific models, and argued to be compatible with, but less demanding than Tuomela’s own description of his account as a philosophical theory of the social world. My approach is also suggested to be applicable to many (but not necessarily all) other methodologically naturalist accounts of collective intentionality and social ontology.","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"52 1","pages":"175 - 203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931211056952","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper argues for theoretical modeling and model-construction as central (but not necessarily the only) types of activities that philosophers of social ontology (in the analytic tradition) engage in. This claim is defended through a detailed case study and revisionary interpretation of Raimo Tuomela’s account of the we-perspective. My interpretation is grounded in Ronald Giere’s account of scientific models, and argued to be compatible with, but less demanding than Tuomela’s own description of his account as a philosophical theory of the social world. My approach is also suggested to be applicable to many (but not necessarily all) other methodologically naturalist accounts of collective intentionality and social ontology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一种基于模型的社会本体论方法
本文认为理论建模和模型构建是社会本体论哲学家(在分析传统中)所从事的中心(但不一定是唯一的)活动类型。通过对Raimo Tuomela关于我们视角的描述的详细案例研究和修正解释,为这一主张辩护。我的解释基于罗纳德·吉尔对科学模型的描述,并被认为与托梅拉自己将他的描述描述为社会世界的哲学理论相兼容,但要求较低。我的方法也被认为适用于许多(但不一定是所有)其他方法论自然主义者对集体意向性和社会本体论的描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.
期刊最新文献
Do We Have to Choose Between Different Concepts of Social Structure? A Comparative Analysis of Approaches and Ideas From Nigel Pleasants, Douglas V. Porpora, and David Easton Review Essay: Limits of the Numerical and the Personalized Measurement Trend in Mental Health Care Instrumentalism in the Social and Moral Sciences Concepts in Context: Ontological Coherence in Political Science Research Book Review: A Way Through the Global Techno-Scientific Culture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1