Comment on Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinen

Kuvaus

This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My com- ments focus on four issues. First, I argue that his naturalistic reconstruction of critical realist transcendental arguments shows that transcendental arguments should be treated as a rare curiosity rather than a general argumentative strategy. Second, I suggest that Kaidesoja’s analysis does not really justify his optimism about the usefulness of causal powers ontology in the social sciences. Third, I raise some doubts about the heuristic value of Mario Bunge’s social ontology that Kaidesoja presents as a replacement for critical realist ontology. Finally, I propose an alternative way to analyze failures of aggregativity that might better serve Kaidesoja’s purposes than the Wimsattian scheme he employs in the book.
Alkuperäiskielienglanti
LehtiJournal of Social Ontology
Vuosikerta1
Numero2
Sivut333-340
Sivumäärä8
ISSN2196-9663
DOI - pysyväislinkit
TilaJulkaistu - 2015
OKM-julkaisutyyppiB1 Kirjoitus tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä

Tieteenalat

  • 5141 Sosiologia
  • 611 Filosofia

Lainaa tätä

@article{7151e4987ac046a0b516dc564d48ebf9,
title = "Comment on Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology",
abstract = "This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My com- ments focus on four issues. First, I argue that his naturalistic reconstruction of critical realist transcendental arguments shows that transcendental arguments should be treated as a rare curiosity rather than a general argumentative strategy. Second, I suggest that Kaidesoja’s analysis does not really justify his optimism about the usefulness of causal powers ontology in the social sciences. Third, I raise some doubts about the heuristic value of Mario Bunge’s social ontology that Kaidesoja presents as a replacement for critical realist ontology. Finally, I propose an alternative way to analyze failures of aggregativity that might better serve Kaidesoja’s purposes than the Wimsattian scheme he employs in the book.",
keywords = "5141 Sociology, 611 Philosophy",
author = "Ylikoski, {Petri Kullervo}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1515/jso-2015-0005",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "333--340",
journal = "Journal of Social Ontology",
issn = "2196-9663",
publisher = "de Gruyter",
number = "2",

}

Comment on Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology. / Ylikoski, Petri Kullervo.

julkaisussa: Journal of Social Ontology, Vuosikerta 1, Nro 2, 2015, s. 333-340.

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinen

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comment on Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology

AU - Ylikoski, Petri Kullervo

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My com- ments focus on four issues. First, I argue that his naturalistic reconstruction of critical realist transcendental arguments shows that transcendental arguments should be treated as a rare curiosity rather than a general argumentative strategy. Second, I suggest that Kaidesoja’s analysis does not really justify his optimism about the usefulness of causal powers ontology in the social sciences. Third, I raise some doubts about the heuristic value of Mario Bunge’s social ontology that Kaidesoja presents as a replacement for critical realist ontology. Finally, I propose an alternative way to analyze failures of aggregativity that might better serve Kaidesoja’s purposes than the Wimsattian scheme he employs in the book.

AB - This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My com- ments focus on four issues. First, I argue that his naturalistic reconstruction of critical realist transcendental arguments shows that transcendental arguments should be treated as a rare curiosity rather than a general argumentative strategy. Second, I suggest that Kaidesoja’s analysis does not really justify his optimism about the usefulness of causal powers ontology in the social sciences. Third, I raise some doubts about the heuristic value of Mario Bunge’s social ontology that Kaidesoja presents as a replacement for critical realist ontology. Finally, I propose an alternative way to analyze failures of aggregativity that might better serve Kaidesoja’s purposes than the Wimsattian scheme he employs in the book.

KW - 5141 Sociology

KW - 611 Philosophy

U2 - 10.1515/jso-2015-0005

DO - 10.1515/jso-2015-0005

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 333

EP - 340

JO - Journal of Social Ontology

JF - Journal of Social Ontology

SN - 2196-9663

IS - 2

ER -