The thesis tries to show that accounting science suffers from an analysis and interpretation from the spectrum of the theory of knowledge, the main purpose being to contribute to the generation of knowledge that guides the consolidation of accounting science.
Scientific practice has shown that research is a set of processes linked by multiple links that account for its complexity. It is in permanent development and transformation, and adopts multiple aspects and relationships in a historical evolution that has no end.
So the study of the theory of knowledge raises questions such as is knowledge possible? What is the origin of knowledge? Etc., the various solutions are derived from dogmatism or skepticism. The theory of knowledge is a theory, that is, a philosophical explanation and interpretation of human knowledge.
From the study of the theory of knowledge arises the controversial issue of the classification of science, a subject that allows us to characterize accounting as a social science, a set of systematized knowledge that reflects accounting structures of the production process of goods and services.
In addition, in the stage of contrasting the theory of knowledge and accounting, the unilateral dispersion of the concepts referring to the possibility and origin of knowledge is evident.
Finally, in the attempt to explain the subject of the classification of the sciences from the spectrum of the theory of knowledge, we show that the relationship of one or more sciences allows to better explain the accounting phenomenon and the intersection of statistics and accounting generates a new area in accounting science called CONTAMETRY (Etymologically means: conta = accounting and metrics = measurement).
DISCUSSION GUIDE
The main concepts that stand out in the thesis are the following:
- ResearchDialecticsMetaphysicsPhilosophyTheory of knowledgePossibility of knowledgeOrigin of knowledgeClassification of sciencesCharacterization of accountingContametrics
INTRODUCTION
The thesis starts from a lengthy examination without falling into picturesque "investigation". It is a short and succinct exposition. I believe that our institution could not evade its commitment to the controversial issue of accounting research, because it evidences its historical vicissitudes. The viceregal, intellectual and academic caciquismo must be removed. But there is still more. The guardianship of old totems that not only impede cultural development but also corrode, infect with their putrefaction a youth that, like the Peruvian, does not deserve this future.
My purpose in this thesis is to highlight the capital aspect of the theory of knowledge and demonstrate that accounting science suffers from an analysis and interpretation from the perspective of the theory of knowledge.
I will allude to the reasons for the futility of the current controversy concerning the nature of accounting. The research that follows is based on the conception that knowledge is not creation but rather a process by virtue of which reality is reflected and reproduced in human thought.
To better illustrate this, we are going to formulate a series of questions (because from questions we form doubts or problems) Is knowledge possible? What is your science character? What is the origin of knowledge? What is an object of study ?, Etc. Well, each one of them deserves to be analyzed objectively to give a concrete answer to these and many other questions that arise as a correlate in perspective of the task called research, there is no doubt that in the Conservative and traditional thoughts currently assert a speculative philosophy, so that dogmatism should be rejected and subjectivism or its derivatives should be avoided.
The structure of the present is distinguished into four parts. In the first part, preliminary notions are presented. In the second, the foundations of the theory of knowledge. In the third, we will contrast the theory of knowledge against accounting. Finally, an analysis and interpretation of the classification of science.
The Theory of Accounting Knowledge is a thesis subject to criticism - avoiding perfectionism - to new contributions that allow consolidating this conception of the research process in order to obtain more fruitful results for accounting science.
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY NOTION
Scientific research is a process that aims to achieve objective, that is to say, true knowledge about certain aspects of reality, in order to use it to guide the transformative practice of men. Scientific practice has shown that research is a set of processes linked by multiple links that account for its complexity. It is in permanent development and transformation, and adopts multiple aspects and relationships in a historical evolution that has no end.
Throughout the entire modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the 18th century, in France, where the decisive battle was fought over all medieval rubbish, the servitude in institutions and ideas, we must prove to be consistent, faithful to all the principles of natural science, hostile to superstition, self-righteousness, etc. Where, they appear to refute empirical investigations, from the point of view of the "newest" and "contemporary" positivism, of the natural sciences, etc. A poorly conceived and worse executed positivism. In it, naive conceptions, that is, supported by common sense, such as metaphysics, are subjected to critical examination.
METAPHYSICS OR SCIENCE?
Discordant, right? The term metaphysics arose in the 1st century BC to designate a part of Aristotle's philosophical heritage and literally means "what follows after physics." Aristotle himself had called this part of his philosophical doctrine - in his opinion, the most important - "first philosophy", which investigates the higher principles of everything that exists, in Aristotle's opinion inaccessible to the sense organs, so understandable only intellectually and necessary for all sciences.
The idea of metaphysics as an antidiallectic way of thinking, as a result of one-sidedness and subjectivism in knowledge, as a way of seeing things and phenomena, considering them finished and invariable, independent of each other, denying internal contradictions as a source development in nature and in society, arises in the Modern Era. This was historically conditioned by the fact that scientific and philosophical knowledge deepened and differentiated scientific knowledge, decomposed nature into several isolated spheres, seen out of all connection between them. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, HEGEL (1770 - 1831) was the first to use the term "metaphysics" in the sense of antidiallectic, but he did not investigate or substantiate it in the proper way.This was the work of Carlos MARX (1818 - 1882) and Federico ENGELS (1820 -1895), who, generalizing the data of science and social development, revealed the scientific inconsistency of metaphysical thought and opposed the method of materialist dialectics..
The denial of qualitative changes, the understanding of development only as a quantitative increase or decrease, as a simple repetition of what already exists, without the birth of something new, the refusal to recognize internal contradictions as the source of development, are also characteristic aspects of the metaphysics of our day.
Well, the Dialectic is a science that deals with the most general laws of the development of nature, of society and of human thought.
A long history has preceded the scientific conception of dialectics, and the very concept of dialectics has emerged during the reworking and even the overcoming of the initial meaning of the term.
On the other hand, science is a form of social consciousness; it constitutes a historically formed system of ordered knowledge whose veracity is constantly checked and clarified in the course of social practice. The strength of knowledge lies in the general, universal, necessary and objective character of its truthfulness. Unlike art, which reflects the world using artistic images, science apprehends it in concepts through the resources of thought. Faced with religion, which offers a distorted and fantastic representation of reality, science formulates its conclusions based on facts, and not on facts. Reality is, for science, the point of departure and arrival.
Furthermore, knowledge constitutes a complex dialectical process that takes place in different ways, has its stages and degrees, and different forces and abilities of man participate in it. I am convinced that our consciousness develops from reality itself.
Meanwhile, that philosophy is the science of the universal laws to which both being (that is, nature and society) and man's thought, the process of knowledge, are subordinate. Consequently, philosophy is one of the forms of social consciousness and is ultimately determined by the economic relations of society. The fundamental question of philosophy as a special consciousness lies in the problem of the relationship between thinking and being.
CHAPTER II
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Questions: How is knowledge possible? On what is knowledge based? Etc., belongs to a philosophical discipline called in various ways: "Theory of knowledge", "Critique of knowledge", "Gnoseology", "epistemology". We will not concern ourselves here with the meaning of the various names in this discipline; We refer the article Theory of knowledge. For now we will call it "Gnoseology."
The questions previously formulated, despite their generality, do not exhaust the problems that arise in the theory of knowledge.
The problem - the problems - of knowledge has been dealt with by almost all philosophers, but the importance that the theory of knowledge has acquired as a "philosophical discipline" is a relatively recent affair.
The Greeks introduced in philosophical literature, and with a precise sense, the terms that still serve us to designate our discipline. They frequently dealt with gnoseological problems, but they used to subordinate them to questions later called "ontological". The question: What is knowledge? Something similar happened with many medieval philosophers. However, it is plausible to argue that only in modern times the problem of knowledge often becomes a central problem - albeit not the only one - in philosophical thought. The constant concern of the aforementioned authors for the structure of knowledge is very specific. But the study of knowledge was not yet conceived as being able to give impetus to a new philosophical discipline. From KANT Immanuel (1724 - 1804), on the other hand,the problem of knowledge began to be the subject of the "theory of knowledge." Furthermore, a certain "epistemophilia" has often manifested itself in modern and contemporary philosophical thought, which contrasts with the "ontophilia" of the Greeks and medievals.
It is probable that, as Nicolai Hartmann has indicated, epistemological problems are closely co-involved with ontological problems.
PHENOMENOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE
This doctrine, founded by Kant, tries to reconcile the two opposite tendencies, that of realism and that of idealism. Phenomenalism (from phainomenon = phenomenon, appearance) maintains that we do not know things as they are in themselves, but as they appear to us. He considers that there are real things, but that we cannot know their essence, their intimate nature. The only thing that is given to us are the phenomena, that is, the contents of consciousness.
In summary, phenomenalism, as we find it in Kant, can be synthesized in the following way: 1. We cannot know the thing itself; 2. Our knowledge is limited to phenomena; 3. The world of phenomena arises into our consciousness because we order sensible material according to the a priori forms of intuition and understanding.
POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE
To the question, is knowledge possible? Radical answers have been given. One is dogmatism, according to which knowledge is possible; moreover: things are known as they are offered to the subject. Another is skepticism, according to which knowledge is not possible.
The emergence of dogmatism is linked to the development of religious representations, to the demand that the dogmas of the Holy Inquisition be accepted by faith, established as indisputable truth, not subject to criticism and obligatory for all believers. Dogmatism is linked to anti-dialectical conceptions that deny the idea of variability and the development of the world.
Dogmatism often turns into its opposite, into skepticism. Skepticism is the philosophical conception that calls into question the possibility of knowledge of objective reality.
Radical responses are not the most frequent in the history of the theory of knowledge. The most common is to adopt variants of skepticism or dogmatism.
ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE
To the question, what is the origin of knowledge? The question of the origin of human knowledge can have both a psychological sense and a logical sense.
Rationalism (de ratio = Latin) sees in thought, in reason, the main source of human knowledge. According to him, a knowledge only deserves, in reality, this name when it is logically necessary and universally valid.
Empiricism is an epistemological theory that considers sensory experience as the only source of knowledge; affirms that all knowledge is based on experience and is acquired through experience.
Consequently, the theory of knowledge is, as its name suggests, that is, a philosophical explanation and interpretation of human knowledge.
CHAPTER III
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACCOUNTING
In order to get an idea of the global development of the currents of thought in the world, we have provided ourselves with works of ecumenical dimension such as: Vicenzo MASI; Leandro CAÑIBANO CALVO; Enrique BALLESTEROS, Samuel Alberto MANTILLA BLANCO - Gabriel VÁSQUEZ TRISTANCHO; Federico GERTZ MANERO; etc.
Is it possible to get acquainted with accounting in periods of development of society? To resolve this issue, various solutions have been issued, the main ones being: dogmatism and skepticism.
There was a segment in the period of development of society, where accounting glimpsed its essence and it is in the Middle Ages or in feudal society, where the sciences par excellence were theology and philosophy. After these facts or empirical evidence we find ourselves facing some very important intellectual contributions such as:
VICENZO MASI (1893)
Extraction
The most renowned Professor of the 1920s is the Italian Vicenzo Masi was born in Rimini on February 6, 1893. He studied in Venice, at Ca'Foscari and had Fabio Besta as a teacher, obtaining in 1919 the title of Doctor of Studies for the "Magisterio della Ragioneria".
His thought
It could be said that the scientific activity of Professor Masi has developed in three streams of research:
Studies on the company's finances.
Studies on accounting as a doctrine of heritage and the phenomena it presents and its historical evolution.
Critical accounting studies.
Masi fought valiantly, even through teaching at the University of Bologna, for Accounting as a science of heritage phenomena. According to his point of view, only in the study of the heritage of the hacienda and the phenomena it presents does Accounting acquire the dignity of science, breadth of tasks, inexhaustible problems to solve, and not understood as a theory of the instruments and procedures of representation, which, however they are studied, cannot be more than means of work and representation.
LEANDRO CAÑIBANO CALVO (1974)
Extraction
Associate Professor of Business Accounting and Cost Statistics at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain.
His thought
Establishing the principles of accounting science today means knowing which have been the historical milestones through which its doctrine has passed, on the one hand; and on the other of having chosen the most current analysis methodology, which is the use of the so-called “research program”, masterfully exposed by the professor of modern logic LAKATOS, a distinguished disciple of KARL POPPER.
We must distinguish between the historical evolution of accounting, and the evolution of the history of the concept.
In the first, the three periods of historical elaboration are traditional: empirical, classical and scientific, to which we are not going to refer, since there are works in our language that describe them perfectly.
In the historical evolution of the concept of our science, the different theories tested by the accounting writers, which constitute more or less plausible reasoning to explain the foundation and the real operation of accounting mechanics, are grouped by Professor CAÑIBANO and analyzed, in three research programs, which he calls: legalistic, economic and formal approach.
ENRIQUE BALLESTEROS (1975)
Extraction:
Enrique Ballesteros was born in Spain.
His thought
He is the accounting scholar who has characterized by detaching a plurality of issues related to the research process for the generation of scientific knowledge. For example: Matrix accounting (Mattessich), Multidimensional accounting, Axioms and formal methods, A theory of accounting knowledge, The accounting graph, Models and axiomatic construction, Accounting and computing, Accounting facts, Towards an accounting structuralism, Etc.
In relation to the theory of knowledge, he states: “Accounting assumes a double role: that of providing data and that of playing with them. This leads us to wonder to what extent accounting information should be trusted. If there is a danger that accounting will mislead us, we must defend ourselves against it; For that we will have to start by doing the Kantian theory of knowledge, designed especially for accounting. Naturally, if we speak of Kantian theory of knowledge, this is only for comparison. A theory of accounting truthfulness could not be approached today as a philosophical elucubration, but as a positive investigation ”.
Samuel Alberto MANTILLA BLANCO & Gabriel VÁSQUEZ TRISTANCHO (1992)
Extraction
Public accountants linked to professional practice and university professorship, have poured into this writing their rich professional and teaching experiences, but mainly their steadfast love for the exam, meditation, study, science. Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia.
His thought
The authors address three large fields: knowledge, methodology and research.
In short, the list is innumerable, I must express that it has not been possible to include for obvious reasons all the accountants, philosophers, historians, etc., apart from being scarce the works in these lines.
We can deduce that the aforementioned authors tried to explain accounting phenomena from a perfectly biased perspective because they did not try to solve the fundamental problem of philosophy, they did not analyze the structure of scientific knowledge, they did not explain the theory of knowledge, etc.
In this sense, the analysis and explanation of the possibility of knowledge during the origin and evolution of accounting ends up being circumscribed in dogmatism or skepticism, being totally pigeonholed and buried until today.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF SCIENCES
The classification of the sciences from the spectrum of gnoseology is one of the topics that initiates many appreciations and criticisms regarding its development in the historical segment. Then, some questions arise such as, for example, is a historical sketch of the classification of sciences possible? What are the classification principles of science? What is the position of accounting in the classification of the sciences?
HISTORY
The ancient thinkers Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) and others divided the entire domain of knowledge (according to its object) into three fundamental spheres: nature (physical), society (ethics) and thought (logical).
Francis Bacón (1561-1626) Classifies history as a science of memory; philosophy, as the science of reason (God, nature and man); and, poetry, as a science of the imagination, constitutes the fundamental knowledge.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) considered the mathematical method universal, and placed geometry at the head of the deductive sciences, and physics, at the head of the inductive ones.
Augusto Comte (1798-1857) the classification constituted the encyclopedic and hierarchical series of sciences: Mathematics / Astronomy / Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Sociology.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) takes into account mainly the nature of the methods. The abstract sciences study the forms of phenomena. The concrete ones study the phenomena themselves.
Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) draws on the characters of objects. Distinguish formal sciences and real sciences; the former deal with ideal objects; the second, of real objects or of experience.
Mario Bunge presents “(…) a great division of the sciences, in formal (or ideal) and factual (or material) (…) formal statements consist of relationships between signs, the statements of factual sciences refer, for the most part, to extra-scientific entities: to events and processes. (…) Also takes into account the method by which verifiable statements are tested: while formal sciences are content with logic to rigorously prove their theorems (…), factual sciences need more than formal logic: to confirm their conjectures need observation and / or experiment ”.
MB Kedrov - A. Spirkin at present, the general classification of the sciences - expresses - is based on the discovery of the interrelations between three great sectors of scientific knowledge: the natural sciences, the social sciences and philosophy, each of the which encompasses a whole group (complex) of sciences.
There are other possible ways of highlighting the different aspects that reflect the general links between the sciences.
BEGINNING
To classify the sciences is to discover the link that exists between them, on the basis of certain principles, and to express their links, in the form of a logically grounded distribution (or series) of them.
From the gnoseological point of view, the principles of the classification of the sciences are divided into objective - when the links between them are deduced from the relationships between the research objects themselves - and subjective - when the basis of the classification is made dependent on the particularities of the subject-.
From the methodological point of view, the classification of science is divided into external and internal.
From the logical point of view they are based on two principles: that of Auguste Comte (1798-1857) from the general to the partial and that of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) from the abstract to the concrete.
The classification of the sciences presupposes the inseparability of the principle of objectivity and the principles of development (or subordination).
The classifications are permanently modified and each time they become more precise, the unfolding of previous sciences taking place everywhere. With which the classification of the sciences can no longer be represented by a line, but requires a deep and complex ramification.
The sciences are immersed in frequent changes, since in this there are attempts to identify and define their object of study. On the other hand, as knowledge about an objective reality progresses, new facets of it are discovered, which become an object of knowledge.
Classical science, whose period extends from its birth in the 7th century BC to the 19th century AD, has as its paradigmatic model, the "elements" of Euclid's Geometry (c. 300 BC, Alexandria). The state (of perfection) of a science was determined by the degree to which it approached that model.
First of all, we must remember that Kant, the greatest philosopher of the eighteenth century, proclaimed that both Logic and Mathematics had reached the definitive fullness of content in their time, subtracting in the future only a perfection of form. There is no doubt that he was carried away by the intuitive-intellectual evidence.
However, a few years after his death (1804), the geometries later called non-Euclidean appeared, largely incompatible with common sense or at least requiring a re-education of common sense. These are, as is known, the geometries of: 1) the spherical surface (with constant positive curvature), called elliptical, in which the sum of the angles of the triangle is greater than two straight lines; It was created by Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866). 2) The pseudosphere (surface with a constant negative curve), called hyperbolic, in which the sum of the angles of the triangle is less than two right angles, having been created almost simultaneously and independently by Johan KF Gauss (1777 - 1855), Jonos Bolyai (1775-1856) and Nicolaus Labochevski (1793-1856). Next to them,Euclidean geometry turns out to be the geometry of the zero curvature surface and was renamed parabolic. This relativization was completed by Arthur Cayley by demonstrating, around 1859, the inclusion of all geometries in prospective geometry.
One aspect of this scientific revolution that deserves to be highlighted is that which is contained in the following question: Which of the three geometries is the true one? When the works of Riemann and Lobachvski were published, the vast majority of mathematicians, allowing themselves to be guided by common sense, after reiterating their adherence to the “only true geometry” - that of Euclid, limited themselves to considering non-Euclidean geometries as "Scientific games", revealing of the genius of their authors, but lacking in truth and "useless" (it is an intellectual pity).
It goes without saying that the meaning that these statements have in the Hellenic cultural context is different from that attributed to them in their historical succession by medieval, Arab, modern and contemporary cultures. We leave the task to the hermeneuts.
POSITION OF ACCOUNTING IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF SCIENCES
In the controversial topic that generates harsh discussions regarding the classification of sciences, we find evidence that springs up in the history of accounting science: in his book "Theory and structure of accounting" by E. BALLESTEROS (1979) expresses "Al Like geometry, algebra, economics or any other mathematical or mathematizable science, accounting has begun to be constructed axiomatically today. The initiator of axiomatic accounting has been Richard Mattessich in his article Towards a General and Axiomatic Foundation of Accountancy, dating from 1957. (…) but it is clear that each particular branch of accounting will need its own axiomatic, (…). Once the axioms and basic definitions have been chosen, each accounting is constructed as a succession of mathematically provable theorems ”.Here we note that of the different divisions of the sciences the one that most peaks is that of Mario BUNGE, that is, in formal (or ideal) and factual (or material), characterizing it as a formal science, explaining that it is in a process of frank axiomatization, if so, M. BUNGE himself would be right to question only by reiterating the following statement:
“(…) No factual theory is fully axiomatic and, as we will see shortly, axiomatization does not exhaust the content of a factual theory. The reason for this impossibility is that factual theories have to be open to experience ”. Likewise, in the other segment it expresses “(…) we realize that formal completeness is equivalent to axiomatibility. (…) Full axiomatization is undesirable in factual science ”. Now we can express that E. BALLESTEROS tried to explain in a nebulous environment, what is important and redeemable is that he did it and that is a good advance in the process of generating knowledge, he also failed to clearly perceive the positivist or neopositivist theory, that is, he conceived wrongly, consequently he did not visualize the principles of the classification of the sciences.
The classification of science allows us to identify and define the object of study of accounting. This allows us to define accounting as a social science.
Therefore, accounting is a social science, it is a set of systematized knowledge that reflects accounting structures regarding the process of production of goods and services.
CONTAMETRY
The classification of science has allowed accounting to generate new areas of knowledge throughout its history, demonstrating the permanent development of science.
In this regard, Alfredo FUENTES MALDONADO in his presentation "Statistics as Problem Solving in Accounting" presented at ANFACOFI 2001 points out - "The accountant must receive information (quantum or non-quantum) and if this information decides on the group from which it was extracted, the accountant will be using descriptive statistics, but if instead, based on this information, he begins to deduce the general behavior of all the elements within which his group was, he will be using inferential statistics ”.
Graph No. 01
Contametry
Likewise, Galileo said: “(…) measure, where you can measure. If there is something that can be measured, find a way to do it ”.
In economics, for example, econometrics was developed, let's see some definitions:
“(…) Econometrics can be defined as the quantitative analysis of real phenomena based on the simultaneous developments of observation and theory, related by appropriate inference methods”.
“(…) Econometrics can be defined as the social science in which the tools of economic theory, mathematics and statistical inference are applied to the analysis of phenomena”. And, in sociology sociometry is explained, these concepts induce questions such as:
Why is contametry important from a scientific perspective?
Contametry deals with the quantitative and qualitative analysis of accounting phenomena in the real world (object of study) together with the permanent development of the components of the research process. Then its value transcends from the perspective of the characteristics that science has, such as being: analytical, explanatory, open, predictive, etc.
It is analytical because scientific research addresses demarcated problems, one by one, and tries to break it down into elements. Try to understand every total situation in terms of its components; try to discover the elements that make up each totality, and the interconnections that explain their integration. Analysis does not lead to neglect of the whole; Far from dissolving integration, analysis is the only known way of discovering how wholes emerge, subsist, and disintegrate. The decomposition of the whole into parts is precisely one of the parts that is analyzed without losing sight of the whole.
Explanatory, after knowing what reality is like, science gets to establish how its different parts or elements are related, and why it is how reality is. The history of science teaches that scientific explanations are endlessly corrected or discarded. Scientific explanations are not finished products but questionable.
It is open because it does not know barriers that limit knowledge. If knowledge is not refutable it simply does not belong to science. Science is not a closed but an open system.
It is predictive, science manages to know what a sector of reality is like and the factors that explain it, then it is in a position to foresee the events that will take place in that sector of reality. And contametry as an instrument to support accounting starts from what the past may have been like and what the future of accounting phenomena may be like.
Therefore, the analysis of data or accounting information does not refer only in quantitative terms but also in quantitative terms, which is nothing else the reflection of the relationships between individuals within the framework of the social sciences, from this perspective we must understand contametry.
Finally, we can say that etymologically contametry means conta = accounting and metrics = measurement. Contametry is a new area of accounting science that quantifies the accounting processes of the production of goods and services. Contametry is the consequence of the interrelation of one or more sciences, as illustrated in graph No. 01.
CONCLUSIONS
- The analysis and interpretation of the system of philosophy allows us to choose a universal vision. The dispersion between the elements of the Theory of Knowledge creates a danger to consolidate a dynamic accounting theory. Research on the position of accounting in the classification of sciences facilitates the characterization of the object of study. In the different stages of society it has not been possible to analyze and interpret the origin and possibility of accounting knowledge. Contametry is a new area of accounting science that quantifies the accounting processes of the production of goods and services Accounting is a social science, it is a set of systematized knowledge that reflects accounting structures of the production process of goods and services.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Juan Javier LEON GARCIA. " ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMATIZATION OF ACCOUNTING SCIENCE: AN APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION", Thesis to choose the Professional Title of Public Accountant., Faculty of Accounting, Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú, Huancayo, Peru, 1993. Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. "CONSTRUCTION OF THEORIES IN SOCIAL SCIENCES" Second Edition, Editorial Trillas SA de CV, Mexico, Page 214, 1988. René DESCARTES. “DISCURSO DEL MÉTODO”, Editorial Mantaro, Lima Peru, Page 107, 1996. Johan HESSEN. "THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE", Editorial Ateneo, Lima Peru, p. 172,1989. Enrique BALLESTEROS. "THEORY AND STRUCTURE OF ACCOUNTING", Alianza Editorial, Third Edition, Madrid, Spain, 1979, Page 333.Federico GERTZ M. ”ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF ACCOUNTING”, 5th. Edition, Editorial Trillas, México, Page 160, 1994 A. Mantilla - GV Tristancho "ACCOUNTING KNOWLEDGE, METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH", Editora Roesga, Santa Fé Colombia, Page 245, 1992. Walter PEÑALOZA R. "THE KNOWLEDGE, INFERENCE AND THE TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION ”, Editorial UNM San Marcos, Lima Peru, Page 81,1962. Mario BUNGE. "SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION", Editorial Ariel, Third Edition, Barcelona, Spain, 1973, Page 955. Vicenzo MASI. "THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ACCOUNTING" Leandro CAÑIBANO CALVO. "THEORY OF ACCOUNTING" Nicolai HARTMANN."METAPHYSICS OF KNOWLEDGE", Editorial Losada, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1957, Págs.
Hypothesis
The end of knowledge is to achieve objective truth.
The science itself does not exist; It is an intellectual product of man, it is a description and explanation of all the phenomena that surround it.
Process by virtue of which reality is reflected and reproduced in thought.
with various Renaissance authors interested in the method and with Descartes, Malenbrache, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and others
Dogmatism, skepticism, subjectivism, relativism, pragmatism, criticism, The origin of our knowledge is in the recognition of the objective laws of nature and the approximately exact reflection of such laws in the brain of man.
There are several theses: retionalism, empiricism, intellectualism, apriorism, Accounting is a social science, a set of systematized knowledge that reflects accounting structures of the production process of goods and services (Juan Javier, LEON GARCIA: 1993).
Enrique BALLESTEROS 1979, Page 23
Mario BUNGE, 1985, p. 11
MB Kedrov - A. Spirkin: "LA CIENCIA", Editorial Grijalbo, México, 1968, Page 117
Enrique BALLESTEROS, 1979, Page 29
Mario BUNGUE: 1973, Page 436
Mario BUNGE: 1973, p. 480
LEON GARCIA, Juan Javier (1993)
Magazine National Association of Accounting and Financial Sciences Faculties, edited by ANFACOFI, Year 2001, No. 4, June-July, Peru, 2001, Page 34.
Magazine National Association of Accounting and Financial Sciences Faculties, edited by ANFACOFI, Year 2001, No. 4, June - July, Peru, 2001, Pages 33-34.
PA Samuelson, TC Koopmans, and JRN Hone 'Report of the Evaluative
Committee for Econometrica, Vol 22 Nº 2 April 1994, Page 141
Arthur S. Goldbergr, Econometric the org., John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York, 1994, p. 1
Download the original file
