Introduction
In the human and social sciences, terms that have been coined since the treatment of the natural sciences and physics have been used profusely as the natural science par excellence. The economy has not been alien to this treatment, therefore accounting as a scientific-economic discipline in its quest to acquire a degree of scientific rigor, has used in a neat way in the construction and reconstruction of its conceptual structure the elements that have allowed the theoretical advance of the natural sciences.
Thus, the study of accounting theories that Popper's theories have used for their elaboration is approached, and in their evolution or criticism they have similarly addressed criteria that refer to Tomas Samuel Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paúl Feyerabend. Understanding the constructions of these authors developed in continuous dialogue, which allows us to discover a common central problem but with logical solutions in the first, historical-sociological in the second, historical-logicism in the third and methodological pluralists in the third.
Epistemology and accounting
If in the study of accounting instruments used in the natural sciences are used, one could face three elements that would or would not allow such a transfer:
- The first is that accounting is not a science and therefore it is using its own language from another category of knowledge.
- The second is that accounting is a science, but it would be classified in the social sciences, in this sense it would be using for a science an instrument specific to knowledge with diametrically opposed characteristics.
- A third option is that accounting is a social science, and allows the use of the methodological instruments used by natural science, because the method is not characteristic of natural science, but of all sciences, what can be called a monism methodological.
To broaden the elements of judgment, specific considerations regarding terms are presented. Karl Popper in his work "The Logic of Scientific Research" originally published in Vienna in 1934. addresses the problem of demarcation and the problem of induction; these considerations and the author's later ones allow us to classify his theory as a “critical rationalism”
Popper considers “the man of science, whether theoretical or experimental, proposes statements and contrasts them step by step”; radically opposed to "inductive methods", understood as "inference that goes from singular statements - observations and experiments - to universal statements - hypotheses or theories -", this criticism is treated with elements that had already been formulated by David Hume known as the " induction problem ".
Hume argues "even after observing that there is frequently a constant conjunction of objects, we have no reason to draw any inference about any object that transcends those of which we have had experience", "why from such experience do we form a conclusion any that go beyond the cases we have had experience? "
Kant tried to solve the "problem of induction" (Popper, 1982, p.29), through what he called the "principle of universal causation", was "valid a priori", but Popper concludes that "it was not successful in his ingenious attempt ”. The Kantian solution is developed in "the critique of pure reason and prolegomena to all metaphysics of the future".
Popper opposes all kinds of induction, even probabilistic, which states that theories (Lakatos, 1983, p.12) "can achieve a certain degree of certainty or probability", since he says "that the mathematical probability of all scientific or deudo-scientific theories, for any magnitude of evidence it is zero ”.
In the appendix "null probability and fine structure of probability and content, (Popper, 1982a, pp. 338-351), he argues that and develops" the probabilistic theory of induction - or idea of an inductive probability is unsustainable ".
Facing induction, Popper proposes "the theory of the deductive method of contrasting" - a method that arises from a problem that he formulated in the following terms "I wanted to distinguish between science and pseudo-science, knowing full well that science He is often wrong and that pseudo-science sometimes finds the truth. "
The path of testing is presented in four stages, (Popper, 1982, p. 32) "we can distinguish four procedures to carry out the testing of a theory: the logical comparison of the conclusions with each other…, logical study of the theory …, Comparison with other theories… and contrast by means of the empirical application of the conclusions that can be deduced from it ”
Under these criteria, accountants have used Popper's language for the development of theories in accounting; Professor Richard Mattessich has presented the proposal of the General Accounting Theory as the universal framework for conceptual orientation of the different existing accounting systems, this General Theory, is validated from a criterion of Popperian falsificationism in the classical sense, while the interpretations of This General Theory will have a validation of a teleological nature, that is, in a utilitarian function. (How relevant is the application of this criterion?)
Professor Tua Pereda points out "the basic assumptions of general theory are eminently positive propositions, whose origin is the search for common points between the different accounting systems in presence and the environment they operate… the verification of a general accounting theory must be invariably linked to specific propositions that govern particular accounting systems; using the Popperian criterion of falsification or negative verification ”
Tua quoting Mattessich indicates “in real practice different systems can be found from those characterized in general theory, which obviously constitute a potential refutation. If these faulty systems fulfilled their purposes correctly, they would constitute a refutation of our theory, but if not, the only thing that is clear is their exclusion from the previous theory ”…
Under this criterion, the consequences of the transfer of instruments from a science - physics - to a discipline - accounting - are evidenced, when the latter has very particular considerations, (Tua, 1983, 605) “the universal character of nomological laws it has to be understood in relative terms in accounting, an accounting law or better an accounting assumption, it is universal insofar as it complies with all accounting systems, but as these are mutable, the universal law is subject to change ”.
Let us evaluate the issue of demarcation, also addressed by Popper in "The logic of scientific research", "the problem of emaciation is to find a criterion that allows us to distinguish between empirical sciences and metaphysical systems", the problem of demarcation is essential and as Lakatos affirms "it has serious ethical and political implications"
But what is science for Popper and what determines the scientific rigor of the theories, the criterion proposed by this author is that of the falsifiability of the systems, pointing out that the theories are never empirically verified, on the contrary the scientific system is characterized because "it must be possible to refute by experience a system an empirical scientific system".
In order to apply falsification, there must be a set of singular statements that serve as premises in falsifying inferences; The accountant José María Requena in his book "Epistemology of accounting as a scientific theory" in reference to the "singular statements" says "… we will obtain two non-empty subclasses: the one that includes the set of statements that the said theory excludes or prohibits and all those who are not in contradiction with it "
The empirical basis problem concerns the empirical character of singular statements and their contrast; In the natural sciences, this problem has generated great discussion, finding only provisional answers, that is, paradigms in the Kuhn sense, in the more sociological sense of the term. If this discussion is presented without a single solution in the so-called hard sciences, with greater emphasis multiple solution alternatives will be presented to the justification of the empirical basis in the social sciences, because as Kuhn says “I was amazed at the number and scope of disagreements patents among social scientists, on the nature of problems and accepted scientific methods ”
In accounting, the possibility of apprehending one's own concepts, through the language of the epistemic-methodological of the social sciences, is highly inappropriate. In the empirical base, the reference to "sensory perception" as an alternative solution does not give a conclusive solution; because the accountants do not try to determine "if this table is red or blue", but they try to determine the "value" of it. Concept of "value" that generates a dissimilarity of appreciations in the specific quantitative determination of the value of a good and / or service, with the techniques used and allowed within accounting to calculate it, in addition to the major problem of orientation that from the economy This term "value" is adopted if the accounting does not have its own orientation.
For Popper, the solution of the empirical base problem is not in the "sensory perception" -for accounting either-, nor in the infinite regression, of justification of statements through statements, nor in psychologism, where the statements are they justify by statements and by perceptual experience. In accounting they approach this concept of rejection of the justifications not accepted by Popper, focused on the construction of Mattessich where the incompleteness theorem of Goëdel is shared, for turning towards infinity.
In this sense, critical rationalism proposes the characteristics that basic statements must satisfy: (Popper, 1982, p.96)
1. No basic statement may be deduced from a universal statement not accompanied by initial conditions.
2. A universal statement and a basic statement must be able to contradict each other.
A basic statement has the form of a singular existential statement such as "there is a crow in the temporal space region K". The element to which the basic statement refers must be "observable", that is, testable intersubjectively by "observation".
In Accounting the formulation of the basic premises formulated by Mattessich in the twenty-one assumptions, are referred to empirical phenomena, in that sense they are verifiable with reality; Understanding that if there is an accounting system with different characteristics from those formulated in the multipurpose General Theory and that satisfactorily fulfills the objectives of the system, it is a system that fulfills the functions of a falsifying statement. This orientation emphasizes the objectives for which an accounting system was designed, a consideration not compatible with Popper, where the "crucial fact" is an element of the non-empty set of false statements, which are contrasted with the empirical reality objectified by the -the researcher's subjective intervention and not a teleological validation criterion, such as the accounting system.
Tua in the section of Epistemology and Accounting Principles (Tua, 1983, pp. 637-634), "accounting epistemology presents some specific peculiarities derived from the material object of it… we must insist once again on the distinction between the two planes Possible aspects of accounting epistemology: cognitive and deontic aspects ”, that is, Tua recognizes for accounting a positive and a teleological structure, recognizing the derivation of principles from general theory as a teleological orientation and forgetting that general theory is built on the basis of some common and universal characteristics of accounting systems, with justification in their technical and methodological utility and not by reference to an existing reality in an aseptic way,where man is a simple observer how positivism would classify knowledge as such.
The transfer of tools from the hard sciences to other types of knowledge, such as economics and accounting, does not make them hard sciences, on the contrary, it hinders their development and does not allow them to meet specific objectives. - reason for their existence - even worse when they try to follow the path of neutrality of the natural sciences in their most abstract stage, completely abandoning the demands that society makes and must make of knowledge that has a clear and determined function of responding to the problems that arise daily and in singular and regional conditions and not in universalist generalizations, proper work of science, for determinists, defenders of the absolute.
In falsification, the process must accept a basic statement, as a starting point, the defense of this intersubjective agreement by scientists is a non-logical response in the rigorous sense that Popper offers to the problem to the problem of the justification of statements, such as he himself admits "it is a type of innocuous dogmatism".
The preference of a theory is due to the capacity of competition of the existing ones, "the one that by natural selection shows to be more apt to survive", also affirms (Popper, 1982, 104) "the choice is determined, in part, by considerations of utility"; This last criterion would allow an approach with the economic-accounting knowledge, where the reference to the truth is displaced by the preference towards the most useful theories.
If this conventionalist principle is shared, the instrumental hypotheses of accounting, understood as macro-rules for action, follow a scientific method in their criterion of teleological validation, in contrast to the fulfillment of the objectives, for which it is applied; In addition, its inference obeys a logical structure, in the derivation of lower level statements, from a deductive logical itinerary in the construction of accounting principles.
What Popper intends is to achieve a high degree of "objectivity", the objective and subjective term used by this critical rationalist with a meaning very close to that used by Kant; but it differs in the different criterion of certainty that both manage, that is, while Kant believes in the possibility of absolute science and completely verifiable -inspired by Newton's science-, Popper is an advocate of theoretical provisionalism and in the negative verification with the use of Tollendo Tollens: "the negation of the consequent is the negation of the antecedent"; and concludes that "the objectivity of scientific statements rests on the fact that they can be verified intersubjectively". Reaching the following conclusion "the theoretical systems are contrasted by deducing from them lower level statements".
In this line Mattessich summarizes the validation for the accounting propositions in three points (Tua, 1995, 350).
1. The propositions of high degree of abstraction, corresponding to the general accounting theory, are verified in relation to the complete range of systems that employ double classification.
2. The propositions of the lowest degree of abstraction, the last specific hypotheses of each accounting system, must be verified ensuring the positive net profit in relation to the objectives pursued and not less than the net profit of the best non-chosen alternative.
3. Each proposition of the intermediate levels of abstraction must be in conformity, on the one hand, with the closest superior proposition and, on the other, with all the inferior propositions that derive from it.
This Mattessich orientation regarding double validation in accounting (cognitive and teleological) is particular to the applied sciences.
In addition, Professor Romero warns in the section "accounting theory is scientific", "for a theory to be considered scientific it must meet a series of minimum requirements and before that it constitutes a systematization of laws or legal forms, through which it can foresee events… this conception of theories is ruled out for accounting, first because it is formulated for factual sciences, those that study facts, and accounting does not deal with facts ”.
Durkheim's proposal –in development of Augusto Comte's idea of applying positivism to the analysis of social facts- is a potential response to Romero León, a proposal that consists of: understanding that social things come to reality only through men, are a product of human reality and their study requires, as Bacon and Descartes formulated, to dispense with all kinds of idols and preliminary notions, which gives us common sense, to approach the social fact as something that is for us totally unknown; In this way, the rule of "methodical ignorance" and the necessary criterion to "systematically discard all notions" are formulated, largely taking Descartes' consideration as a source.
Descartes formulates in this direction the first rule of the method “the first was to never receive anything as true that I obviously did not know as such; in other words, carefully avoid precipitation and prevention; and in not including in my judgments anything more than what was presented to my spirit so clearly and so distinctly, that I had no chance to question it ”
Durkheim formulates that "social facts should be treated as things", "every object of science is a thing, except, perhaps, mathematical objects", it is in this sense that he recognizes that his method is not revolutionary at all and is essentially conservative, he also affirms (Mardones, 1991, p.148) "social facts are things whose nature, although flexible and malleable, cannot be modified at will anyway".
The treatment that authors such as Mattessich, Cañibano, Tua Pereda, Requena and Montesinos, among others, have given to accounting is that of science, they also agree to use the methodology –separately and / or jointly- of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, Balzer, Bunge and Stegmüller, as instruments for their study and validation; which requires determining which are the accounting theories, their hypotheses and statements and test criteria.
Mauricio Nieto (Universidad de los Andes, Colombia) says regarding the transfer of this type of methodologies: “the proposal of the philosophy of traditional science of logical positivism or the works of Karl Popper and his formal and a-historical criteria, were inappropriate to describe the development of scientific knowledge "and highlights the historicist orientation" science must be susceptible to a sociological study in the same way as any other type of knowledge or culture "- it refers to Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend-. "Western science has traditionally been viewed as benevolent, apolitical, and neutral; and its extension as an unquestionable contribution to material progress and civility ",This judgment allows us to think about whether the most consistent with knowledge is its thoughtless transfer or the study and construction of our own scientific history –I mean Latin America-; also affirms the Grandson "western science has also contributed to the stagnation of others", "the implantation of western science and technology can also contribute to the stripping of the natives of the control of their own resources, subtracting power from them in a systematic way".systematically taking power away from them ”.systematically taking power away from them ”.
Nieto ends "the history and philosophy of science, on too many occasions, have been a powerful instrument for those who are interested in legitimizing the present, who want to offer us a future determined by" unshakable historical forces ", but Nieto is categorical" there is no reason that prevents us from thinking different things and we are not obliged to embark on a career of modernization and scientific competitiveness whose rules of the game are determined by the interests of specific social groups ”. This critical analysis of the philosophy and history of science, could be applied almost verbatim to the current debate on the unique economic model imposed and developed in Colombia in the nineties and the implementation of International Accounting Standards from January 1 from 2005.
It is not only the method that gives the category of science to a knowledge, when a knowledge that does not have the rank of science - analysis for social and human knowledge is more applicable - and uses the methods and tools typical of natural science -Hard Sciences-, not only does it not reach its intended scientific rank, but it may also be moving away from its true reason for being, as for social knowledge it is the satisfactory resolution of the specific problems of society; that they can be achieved with instrumental, final and participative rigor; while the natural sciences have a status of neutrality, non-teleological objectivity.
With respect to science, he says (Kant, 1985, p. 29), “if you want to represent knowledge as science, you must first of all be able to determine exactly what is differentiated, which in it is not common to any other and constitutes peculiarity… This statement must be understood in the sense of necessary, but not sufficient.
(Requena, 1981, p.157) responds to this accounting criterion “it is the empirical science, which with respect to an economic unit, allows us at all times the qualitative and quantitative knowledge of its economic reality with the generic purpose of highlight the situation of this unit and its evolution over time "… (Requena, 1981, p.149)" accounting has a material object common to the economy "economic reality", but a formal object proper qualitative knowledge and quantitative of this reality ”. This concept is cited as an example of concern for the identification of the object of study of accounting, but at the same time it must be understood as a reductionist of the radius of action, function and scope of accounting.
The problem of the object of study of accounting, a term that is transferred from the natural sciences, was addressed; Popper addresses a problem that will shed light on the relevance of using the mentioned term. This analysis was addressed in his text “Objective knowledge”, in Chapter V “the object of science”.
Part of the statement "science itself lacks goals", but accepts that scientific activity as rational must have goals, thus, "the object of science is to give satisfactory explanations of everything that seems to require an explanation" and “Explanation is a set of statements by means of which the state of the question to be explained is described” and in this sense, “theories that have an increasingly rich content, an increasingly higher degree of universality and a degree of precision are preferred” growing. "
Popper develops the thesis of the existence of physical systems that are highly regular and biological and social systems that are highly irregular, disordered - as opposed to the classical term of order - and more or less unpredictable. The regular physical systems, ordered and of similar behavior in time, relate them to the prediction clocks - pendulum clock - the unpredictable systems, relate them to the clouds.
This analogy does not indicate that some systems are more perfect and better than others, but rather shows two different natures, which require specific and particular conditions of study, this statement is contrary to the line proposed by Popper regarding methodological monism - falsificationism - that it does not make a methodological distinction between one system and another, nor between natural and human science.
(Popper, 1982, 195) “As a typical and interesting example of a cloud it will resort to a cloud or swarm of flies or mosquitoes. The individual mosquitoes that, like molecules of a gas, all form a swarm move in a surprisingly irregular way).
The accounting system would be classified within the cloud analogy; in its scientific part and close to clocks in its technical part. "Accounting, as a science aimed at the knowledge of economic units, is different from the technique of accounting, being able to say that this is what thought to action is. Science is principle, technique, application rules ”
If accounting science has as its "object of formal study" "economic reality in terms of its qualitative and quantitative characteristics", it faces a dynamic, evolutionary and constantly moving object, difficult to predict.
But physical determinism, which states that "all clouds are clocks", would indicate that the fact that we do not know the laws that govern certain apparently irregular movements is only "an agreement of our ignorance", but that one day we will be able to reach determine those regularities.
In accounting, some accountants accept that the technique has the operation of a pendulum clock, otherwise they could not formulate the equity equation A = C + P, Assets equals liabilities plus equity, this is a consequence of the acceptance of a theory of value and measurement and valuation criteria, which are highly fallible and easy to empirically refute. With this it is demonstrated that the linear and precise operation is the result of accommodating reality to theory, but there is no satisfactory, verifiable and contrasted explanation of reality, which is the reason for science.
Like a cloud, the interpretations or applications of the general accounting theory that depend on the conditions of the environments, on the specific objectives of the systems where they are installed, and to a large extent on the value judgments of those who design and implement the system, in a clear interdisciplinary orientation, such as in the same Popperian line with respect to the fact that problems do not achieve a solution from a single discipline of knowledge but rather require the active participation of different areas of knowledge.
The American physicist Pierce formulated "all clocks are clouds" that is to say "there are only clouds", which leads him to need a determinism in knowledge; for Compton, physical indeterminism "solved not only physical problems, but also biological and philosophical ones". This influence of physics is evident at different times, for the different authors of philosophy who take a position in determinism or indeterminism, as Kant shows in his work, under the predominance of Newton's classical science, he wrote with the criterion of absolutist on science, ethics and aesthetics. - it should be noted that this absolutism is partial, since the noumenon remains unknowable-.
What is accounting ?, a "social science" –respond some authors- and in this sense, ethics constitutes a foundation of development and even of its validation and in the definition of the structure in which it must be sustained its bases, even with the possibility of making an equivalence parallel between auxiliary hypotheses in a scientific research program - Lakatos' language - and an instrumental hypothesis in the interpretation of a general accounting theory with a teleological orientation.
To consider accounting as a science, it must determine its "statements" and / or "explanatory theory", "observational statements" or "contrasting statements" and the "justification of the claim that a theory is true"; for these elements (Popper, 1982b, p.19), tentatively solves the problem of translating subjective terms into objective terms; the subjective or psychological terms were "beliefs" "impression", "justification of a belief".
The problem of the demarcation between what is science and pseudo-scientist, includes the term "crucial experiment", understood as the rigorous experiment that can or tries to falsify a theory, through a fact of a genuine falsifying test; that is, an observable singular statement, leading to falsification of the theory.
In accounting, to meet this requirement, the number of accepted theories must be established, (exclusive and inclusive - since in Kuhnian terms, Hendriksen, I speak of accounting, as a multiparadigmatic discipline), as well as the set of singular false statements of theories current, rival or monopolistic.
How then to understand accounting? The determinism of the physical, social or political systems is another variable to take into account; The economy cannot be understood as a closed system - it is possible that there are no closed systems. (Popper, 1982b, p. 204) “by physically closed system I understand a set or system of physical entities such as atoms, elementary particles, physical forces or force fields that interact with each other - and only with each other - according to defined laws of interaction that leaves no room for interactions or interferences with anything external to that set or closed system of physical entities ”.
If economics and accounting are analyzing an object of study in an open system, each situation requires an independent description and explanation; From this vision, any attempt to universalize the different conditions is invalidated by standardizing techniques that seek to account for a reality; it is to use instruments of "clocks" to approach "the clouds" in the sense of precise systems - if they exist - and chaotic systems - if the irregular exists.
The "doctrine of necessity" according to which "similar causes always produce similar effects", is a psychological doctrine of followers of Hume, who reformulated it as follows: (Popper, 1982b, p. 285) "our actions, volitions, tastes or preferences are caused psychologically by previous experiences and ultimately by our experience and our environment ”; This final appreciation of Hume's followers is so vague, Popper says, that it is perfectly compatible with physical indeterminism and is not comparable with physical determinism.
In continuation of the idea Popper affirms "not all the events of the physical world are predetermined with absolute precision in all their infinitesimal details". This criterion can be thought of in the social sciences, with even greater possibility of perception, accepting as stated by physical indeterminism that many events that follow and have a degree of regularity cannot be denied; but from the singular and relative acceptance one does not pass to the universal and absolute acceptance of determinism.
The belief in a physical determinism and its transfer in the application in the social sciences, is not a topic, of epistemological interest exclusively, but has strong implications of a social, political and economic nature. Well, the attempt to find objectives - ideal situations - from mono-causal or bi-causal determination or with a reduced number of variables, which are expected to behave mechanically and absolutely precisely, can lead to excesses, dogmatism and consequences with high costs for humanity; -in another even more rigorous line, it is said, that science is neutral and in this sense it cannot seek objectives, -a pure positivism- applied to the economy.-
The question can be asked in particular for the sciences of man, (Popper, 1982b, p. 213) "what we want is to understand how non-physical things, such as purposes, deliberations, plans, decisions, theories, intentions and Values can take part in introducing physical changes to the world. " It is answered that it is not possible to explain them in absolute terms of a deterministic physical theory, or a stochastic theory.
Accounting under this criterion cannot be thought of as an aseptic science, free of value judgments and intentions, especially when its existence obeys the specific purposes of the forces acting in a market and its technique is regulated and tends towards greater non-naive normalization. every day. -What is the interest of the International Accounting Standard? - and as Foucault put it "each force has a power to affect (others) and to be affected (by others)", this consideration does not justify the defense of pure chance, where everything and anything can happen, because not everything and in any way emerges.
The Popperian method is the method of trial and error suppression, which determines the statements from which the theories will be falsified, what happens in the social sciences? That they are more oriented to the construction of ideal situations, than to the neutral explanation of past situations. Once the support of the explanation is conditioned by the teleological framework of the possible and provisional model that a certain group has - several groups in the Kuhn language can have different languages in different paradigmatic models and not necessarily commensurable.
Accounting as opposed to neutral positivism can be evaluated from an instrumentalism that teleologically evaluated the most useful tools; In this sense, philosophical thought is expressed by Professor Jaramillo "the instrumentalists looked at scientific theories in a pragmatic way, that is, as useful calculation instruments, to the point that the problem of the truth of theories became a problem secondary"
According to Popper, what is the intention of science ?, (Popper, 1982b, p. 238) "we do not start from observations, but always from problems… the increase in knowledge goes from old to new problems through conjurations and refutations", quotes Darwin and states "it is strange that there are those who do not see that all observations must be in favor or against some point of view"; which shows that observation is not independent or neutral, on the contrary, it is subject to certain conditioning factors. In the economic sciences, observations are determined by theoretical orientations that allow us to describe a social-economic reality; it has been formulated that "all observations are theoretical". "Hanson, develop a concept about it."
Objectivity is reducing its claim to universal neutrality and is being reduced to a matter of degree and it is possible of intersubjective conventionalism among the members of a scientific community. Likewise, the observation must be understood, Popper is guided by an observation that is determined and subordinated first to the previous formulation of the hypothesis or problem and will be subject to endogenous and exogenous conditions in the capture of the observed data.
This case is reflected in a situation typical of the social sciences, such as the analysis of the economic situation of a country; A humanist studies - the term observe is more complex - the level of development of a country X in Latin America, in the data of the observation or study, he will be seeing the dire consequences of implementing an alienating model, generator of misery and poverty.
The same situation is studied by a neoliberal analyst, he will find in the observed data the fulfillment of the laws of the free market and the benefits of competition, reflecting in the data the effectiveness, efficiency and defeat of the non-competitive; in an orientation of Darwin's thought to social science, in defense of the survival of the individuals best suited to survive market competition.
The dissertation also gains strength from the sociology of scientific knowledge, compared to the multiple alternatives of studying scientific work and its close relationship with power mechanisms. Thus, it can be formulated that universalist theories are not the most adequate for thinking about social events and that these require an increasingly singular orientation; as opposed to the widely accepted characteristic of the universality of science; for each fact requires an individual and unique analysis.
