Correspondence Rules and Social Engineering

Abstract

In a series of recent papers, I have argued that the planning for future societies will require a combination of visionary politics and sophisticated social engineering [28, 29, 30, 31]. In particular, I have argued that any social engineering experiment should be firmly anchored in explanatory as opposed to predictive analyses. The reason is, of course, that only explanatory analyses can indicate the possible secondary effects of a specific action. In terms of research strategy, modified variants of the Hempel-Oppenheim [20] schema of scientific explanation seem to provide possible vehicles suited for this task. As recalled, positivists like Hempel [19] advocate that the term scientific explanation should be used to denote the procedure employed when a description of the explanandum, (E), defined as the empirical phenomenon under investigation, is deduced from the explanans, defined as a combination of a set of initial

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.