Comment on Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology
This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My comments focus on four issues. First, I argue that his naturalistic reconstruction of critical realist transcendental arguments shows that transcendental...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
2015-09-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Social Ontology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2015-0005 |
| Summary: | This comment discusses Kaidesoja (2013) and raises the issue whether his analysis justifies stronger conclusions than he presents in the book. My comments 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2196-9655 2196-9663 |