Infallibilism and apriorism are still influential in the philosophy of social science. Infallibilists about human kinds claim that there are features of institutional entities about which we cannot possibly be wrong. But infallibilism is not implied by the theory of collective intentionality that supposedly grounds it. Moreover, it fails to account for the mode of existence of important institutional kinds, including the paradigmatic example of money.
Barnes, S.B.1983. Social life as bootstrapped induction. Sociology17:524-45.
2.
Bloor, D.1997. Wittgenstein, rules, and institutions. London: Routledge.
3.
Boyd, R.1991. Realism, anti-foundationalism, and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies61:127-48.
4.
Briggs, R.1996. Witches and neighbors: The social and cultural context of European witchcraft. London: Penguin.
5.
Campbell, D.T.1958. Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Sciences3:14-25.
6.
Dornbusch, R., and S. Fischer.1994. Macroeconomics. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
Gilbert, M.1989. On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Hacking, I.2002. Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
9.
Hayek, F.A.1943. The facts of the social sciences. Ethics54:1-13.
10.
Lewis, D.1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Blackwell.
11.
Mäki, U.2004. Reflections on the ontology of money. Unpublished paper . University of Helsinki.
12.
Mäki, U.2008. Putnam’s realisms: A view from the social sciences . In Approaching truth: Essays in honour of Ikka Niiniluoto , edited by S. Pihlström, P. Raatikainen, and M. Sintonen.London: College Publications .
13.
Pettit, P.1996. Functional explanation and virtual selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47:291-302.
14.
Putnam, H.1975. The meaning of "meaning." In Mind, Language, and Reality. Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Rothbart, M., and M. Taylor.1992. Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds?" In Language, interaction, and social cognition, edited by G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler.London: SAGE.
16.
Ruben, D.1989. Realism in the social sciences. In Dismantling truth, edited by H. Lawson and L. Appignanesi, 58-75. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
17.
Searle, J.1995. The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.
18.
Sigel, I.E., E. Saltz, and W. Roskind.1967. Variables determining concept conservation in children. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology74:471-75.
19.
Sugden, R.1998. The role of inductive reasoning in the evolution of conventions . Law and Philosophy17:377-410.
20.
Tajfel, H.1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American223: 96-102.
21.
Thomasson, A.2003. Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research68:580-609.
22.
Tuomela, R.2002a. The philosophy of social practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Tuomela, R.2002b. Reply to critics. In Social Facts & Collective Intentionality, edited by G. Meggle , 419-36. Frankfurt: Hänsel-Hohenhausen AG.
24.
Vico, G.1974[1744]. La scienza nuova. Roma: Laterza.
25.
Yzerbyt, V., O. Corneille, and C. Estrada2001. The interplay of subjective essential-ism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review5:141-55.
