Dominant social sciences approaches to complexity suggest that awareness of complexity in late-modern society comes from various recent scientific insights. By examining today’s plant and human genomics sciences, I question this from both ends: first suggesting that typical public culture was already aware of particular salient forms of complexity, such as limits to predictive knowledge (which are often denied by scientific cultures themselves); second, showing how up-to-date genomics science expresses both complexity and its opposites, predictive determinism and reductionism, as coexistent (...) representations of nature and scientific knowledge. I suggest we can understand this self-authored epistemic confusion in modern science by avoiding ‘the usual suspects’ – fading simpler discourses left over from previous scientific times; media oversimplifications; or the need to ‘simplify’ to essentials, for ignorant publics – and looking instead at the silent imaginations of extra-scientific reference groups reflected and projectively performed in scientific discourses-practices themselves. Thus contradictions of complex scientific understandings are systematically created by science’s own embodiment of epistemic commitments influenced by commercial cultures, and by imagined publics who are important new constructed objects of institutional scientific concerns – over authority and trust. New dimensions of complexity thus come alive through paying attention to neglected tacit dimensions of science–society interrelations. (shrink)

Big data represents a significant challenge for the social sciences. From a philosophy-of-science perspective, it is important to reflect on related theories and processes for developing them. In this paper, we start by examining different views on the role of theories in big data-related social research. Then, we try to show how big data is related to standards for evaluating theories. We also outline how big data affects theory- and data-based research approaches and the process of theory building. Discussions include (...) a summary of lines of reasoning, limitations, and a proposal for future developmental steps. (shrink)

Contemporary sociosemiotics is a way to transcend borderlines between trends inside semiotics, and also other disciplines. Whereas semiotics has been considered as an interdisciplinary field of research par excellence, sociosemiotics can point directions at transdisciplinary research. The present article will try toconjoin the structural and the processual views on culture and society, binding them together with the notion of signification. The signification of space willillustrate the dynamic between both cultures and metacultures, and cultural mainstreams and subcultures. This paper pays attention (...) to the practice of sociocultural semiotisation of space and territorialisation by diverse examples and different sociocultural levels that imply semiotic cooperation between several members of groups that can be characterised as socii. We analyse territorialisation by graffiti, by furnishing spatial environment through artistic manners, by shaping the semiotic essence of cities through naming, renaming and translating street names, by pinning and structuring territories with monuments, by landmarking and mapping cultural space through individualisation of cities. We will see how principles of semiotisation of space are valid on different levels (individual and social, formal and informal, democratic and hegemonic, cultural and subcultural) and how these principles form a transdisciplinary object of study as ‘semiotisation of space’, and how space can be regarded as a genuinely transdisciplinary research object. Individual, culture, and society are connected in such an object both as constituents and as a background of study. (shrink)

My argument is that the concept of social system itself is no longer a unique heritage of the human and social sciences. In other words, this is about the complexity or complexitation of the foundation of social sciences and its disciplines, that is: the idea of social systems itself. Therefore, I s..

The theory of generalized symbolic media is a central element of the contemporary sociological theory. Its transversality can be observed in different conceptual models of a diverse epistemological background, as the cases of Parsons, Habermas, Luhmann and Derrida prove it. The paper unfolds the hypothesis that the theorization of symbolic media attains this horizontality in contemporary sociology because it is in best position to explain the social as an emergent order, that is, as an autonomous order whose properties cannot be (...) reduced to the operations of inferior levels.La teoría de los medios simbólicamente generalizados es un componente central de la teoría sociológica contemporánea. Esta centralidad se observa en su aparición transversal en modelos conceptuales de distinta base epistemológica, como los casos de Parsons, Habermas, Luhmann y Derrida lo constatan. Este artículo indaga en la hipótesis de que la teorización acerca de los medios simbólicos logra esta transversalidad en la sociología contemporánea porque logra dar cuenta de lo social como orden emergente, es decir, como un orden autónomo cuyas propiedades no son reductibles a las operaciones de niveles inferiores. (shrink)