Dialogue on informatic philosophy of behavioral sciences: Positivist bias misses the symbol-system point

Abstract

Except for a few misunderstandings that I will try to dispel, Dr. van Gigch's use of the metalinguistic framework is, of course, the same I refer to in my paper. Albeit there is a profound epistemological disagreement: he believes that he is viewing a world which exists independently of the ways we build its facticity; I am concerned with the symbol system (Newel1 & Simon, 1976) with which social reality is constructed (Clegg, 1983, 124).

The information-system-processing triad: Common core of human disciplines

“…Furthermore, this structural equivalence is precisely the relation among the three elements of the triad (Frischknecht, 1986;1987). Accordingly, Tables 2, 3, and 4 collapse into Table 1.…”

“…It also leads to the proposed classification of sciences as abstract, natural, and artificial, which organizes the sections that follow (Frischknecht, 1987).…”

Parallogic: As Mind Meets Context

“…The interpretive capabilities of human beings mean that interpersonal contexts are subjective and therefore highly idiosyncratic (supported by Frischknecht 1987). Meanings, classifications of behavior, are co-emergent phenomena in that they are created in specific contexts.…”