The Network Synthesis of Social Action I: Towards a Sociological Theory of Next Society

Sociological theory has always been a theory on the network synthesis of social action. In this age of society intrigued by the introduction of computers, this has to become explicit. To know about the form of the network synthesis of social action means to know how the society, which will cease to be modern and become, instead, the next one, a knowledge society, deals with its inherent dynamics by generating specific structures able to sustain social action. This paper attempts to look more closely at the network synthesis of social action from two perspectives. Firstly it goes back to Niklas Luhmann's conjecture about the structures of society depending mainly on culture forms able to deal with the surplus meaning, or overflow, produced by the introduction of new media for the dissemination of communication. This is a conjecture about the structures of society being the outcome of it having to find a solution to new kinds of overflow by switching from one culture form, and the concomitant social structure, order, and understanding , to another. The morphogenesis of society depends on these dissemination media eclipsing one another, while all however persisting, even if changed in scope, scale, and range. The paper, then, tries to develop a model of social action which takes into account the culture form possibly able to deal with the surplus meaning brought about by the introduction of the computer as a medium for the dissemination of communication. This model proposes a form integrating ideas from sociological systems theory and sociological network theory. It tries to be simple enough to accommodate the complexity of social action.

[1]  P. R. Nelson The algebra of random variables , 1979 .

[2]  N. Luhmann Essays On Self-Reference , 1990 .

[3]  L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus , 2021, Nordic Wittgenstein Review.

[4]  A. Michelson,et al.  On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether , 1887, American Journal of Science.

[5]  Z. Birnbaum,et al.  Multi-Component Systems and Structures and Their Reliability , 1961 .

[6]  R. Gaskins Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse , 1993 .

[7]  Julio Michael Stern,et al.  Bayesian evidence test for precise hypotheses , 2003 .

[8]  David Lindley,et al.  How to Gamble if You Must. (Inequalities for Stochastic Processes) By Lester E. Dubins and Leonard J. Savage. Pp. xiv, 249. 102s. 1965. (McGraw-Hill Book Co.) , 1966, The Mathematical Gazette.

[9]  Reinhard Viertl,et al.  Probability and Bayesian Statistics , 1987 .

[10]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  De Finetti’s Methods of Elicitation , 1987 .

[11]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[12]  Julio Michael Stern,et al.  On the Truth Value of Complex Hypotheses , 2005, International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC'06).

[13]  Howard Caygill A Kant Dictionary , 1995 .

[14]  G. Shafer,et al.  Probability and Finance: It's Only a Game! , 2001 .

[15]  R. Bruce Lindsay,et al.  Michelson and the Speed of Light. , 1979 .

[16]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[17]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and Refutations , 1963 .

[18]  J. N. Kapur Maximum-entropy models in science and engineering , 1992 .

[19]  Jac Christis,et al.  Luhmann's theory of knowledge: beyond realism and constructivism? , 2001 .

[20]  R. Royall Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .

[21]  Carlos Alberto de Bragança Pereira,et al.  Model selection: Full Bayesian approach , 2001 .

[22]  Telba Z. Irony,et al.  A WEIBULL WEAROUT TEST: FULL BAYESIAN APPROACH , 2001 .

[23]  Michael Evans,et al.  Bayesian ikference procedures derived via the concept of relative surprise , 1997 .

[24]  G. Shafer Lindley's Paradox , 1982 .

[25]  L. Segal,et al.  The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster’s Constructivism , 2001 .

[26]  Luís Gustavo Esteves,et al.  On the bayesianity of pereira-stern tests , 2001 .

[27]  J. D. Trout,et al.  The Philosophy of Science , 1991 .

[28]  Paul Ressel,et al.  A Very General De Finetti-Type Theorem , 1987 .

[29]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[30]  P. Maher Betting on Theories , 1993 .

[31]  M. L. Eaton Group invariance applications in statistics , 1989 .

[32]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  A Symbolic Generalization of Probability Theory , 1992, AAAI.

[33]  N. Luhmann,et al.  The Cognitive Program of Constructivism and a Reality that Remains Unknown , 1990 .

[34]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis and Cognition : The Realization of the Living (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Scie , 1980 .

[35]  Carlos Alberto de Bragança Pereira,et al.  ON THE CONCEPT OF P-VALUE , 1988 .

[36]  Günter Küppers,et al.  Selforganization : portrait of a scientific revolution , 1990 .

[37]  D. Freedman,et al.  A dozen de Finetti-style results in search of a theory , 1987 .

[38]  J. Mingers,et al.  Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis , 1996 .

[39]  Julio Michael Stern,et al.  Evidence and Credibility: Full Bayesian Significance Test for Precise Hypotheses , 1999, Entropy.

[40]  Shelemyahu Zacks,et al.  Testing the independence of Poisson variates under the Holgate bivariate distribution: the power of a new evidence test , 2002 .

[41]  I. Levi Gambling with Truth: An Essay on Induction and the Aims of Science , 1967 .

[42]  Henry Rouanet New Ways in Statistical Methodology: From Significance Tests to Bayesian Inference , 2000 .

[43]  F. Varela Principles of biological autonomy , 1979 .

[44]  J. S. Dugdale,et al.  Entropy And Its Physical Meaning , 1996 .