Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science. / Jaksland, Rasmus.

In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, 34, 2023.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Jaksland, R 2023, 'Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science', European Journal for Philosophy of Science, vol. 13, 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x

APA

Jaksland, R. (2023). Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13, [34]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x

Vancouver

Jaksland R. Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2023;13. 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x

Author

Jaksland, Rasmus. / Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science. In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2023 ; Vol. 13.

Bibtex

@article{c7f73a9f3d4d43c4b2747d9184fc9f32,
title = "Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science",
abstract = "Quantum mechanics supersedes classical mechanics, and social science, some argue, should be responsive to this change. This paper finds that two rather different arguments are currently being used to argue that quantum mechanics is epistemically relevant in social science. One, attributed to Alexander Wendt, appeals to the presence of quantum physical effects in the social world. The other, attributed to Karen Barad, insists on the importance of quantum metaphysics even when quantum effects are negligible. Neither argument, however, is sound. Consequently, the paper concludes that neither of them offers compelling arguments for the view that quantum mechanics has epistemic relevance for social science.",
author = "Rasmus Jaksland",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "European Journal for Philosophy of Science",
issn = "1879-4912",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distinguishing two (unsound) arguments for quantum social science

AU - Jaksland, Rasmus

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Quantum mechanics supersedes classical mechanics, and social science, some argue, should be responsive to this change. This paper finds that two rather different arguments are currently being used to argue that quantum mechanics is epistemically relevant in social science. One, attributed to Alexander Wendt, appeals to the presence of quantum physical effects in the social world. The other, attributed to Karen Barad, insists on the importance of quantum metaphysics even when quantum effects are negligible. Neither argument, however, is sound. Consequently, the paper concludes that neither of them offers compelling arguments for the view that quantum mechanics has epistemic relevance for social science.

AB - Quantum mechanics supersedes classical mechanics, and social science, some argue, should be responsive to this change. This paper finds that two rather different arguments are currently being used to argue that quantum mechanics is epistemically relevant in social science. One, attributed to Alexander Wendt, appeals to the presence of quantum physical effects in the social world. The other, attributed to Karen Barad, insists on the importance of quantum metaphysics even when quantum effects are negligible. Neither argument, however, is sound. Consequently, the paper concludes that neither of them offers compelling arguments for the view that quantum mechanics has epistemic relevance for social science.

U2 - 10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x

DO - 10.1007/s13194-023-00540-x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 13

JO - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

JF - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

SN - 1879-4912

M1 - 34

ER -

ID: 361153333