https://cintademoebio.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM <p>Cinta de Moebio publishes scientific articles and essays on epistemology of social science. It is published three times a year and receives papers at all times in Spanish and English. The evaluation system for peer review is double blind. The evaluation process typically takes two months. It is an open access journal that aims to bring together academics who develop their research in the domain of philosophy of social science in a broad sense, without exclusions or thematic perspectives. Traditionally with a interest in the Spanish-American region but it is open to the international community as a whole.</p> <p>Journal main site here: <a href="http://moebio.uchile.cl">moebio.uchile.cl</a></p> Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales es-ES Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales 0717-554X https://cintademoebio.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM/article/view/82138 This paper aims to reveal the fundamental divergences in the approaches of Cornelius Castoriadis and Gilbert Durand, selected as the two theoretical formulations with the greatest current academic resonance, regarding the notion of the imaginary. First, it explores those aspects where both approaches converge without intending to. It then unravels the marked differences between the ontological, epistemological, anthropological, historicist, political, and methodological principles on which these approaches are based, also highlighting the very different intellectual heritages from which they are imbued. Finally, it points out the epistemological consequences arising from this marked divergence, warning of potential deficiencies in research in the humanities and social sciences derived from a loose and indiscriminate use of the notion of the imaginary. Ignacio Riffo-Pavón Enrique Carretero Copyright (c) 2025 Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales 2025-12-09 2025-12-09 83 https://cintademoebio.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM/article/view/82139 This article revisits the concept of intertextuality from a philosophical perspective. Although this concept originated in philology, where it served an instrumental purpose for understanding historical or literary texts, it has since been adopted by postmodern and poststructuralist philosophy. In this article, we aim to move beyond the philological dimension that viewed intertextuality solely as a methodology, expanding its utility to the specifically philosophical realm. We also seek to transcend the ambiguity of poststructuralist and postmodernist philosophical positions, establishing it as a relevant category for the humanities and social sciences. We draw upon the philosophical framework, but with the concept of the subject as the axis of the intertextual dimension, which aligns with developments in critical Latin American philosophy. Thus, the way in which we philosophically reclaim the concept of the subject is fundamental, particularly regarding how individuals experience processes through intertextual options in their understanding of the world, and how scholars can utilize this same concept for their analysis. In this sense, understanding intertextuality means understanding how subjects choose meanings and set language in motion for the realization of society as social actors in social action. Miguel Alvarado-Borgoño Copyright (c) 2025 Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales 2025-12-09 2025-12-09 83 https://cintademoebio.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM/article/view/82142 Informal conversations have no place in social research methodology textbooks. In the field of sociology, there are hardly any references to them, leaving informal conversations as a lesser status compared to interviews, and difficult to justify both methodologically and epistemologically. In the case of anthropology, informal conversations can be understood as part of participant observation or life histories; that is, as part of qualitative and longitudinal research methodologies. However, in both cases, there is no thoughts that allows methodological value to be given to this everyday practice, which is common in interactions between researchers and informants, especially when these interactions occur over long periods of time. This paper discusses the current role of informal and everyday conversations in these disciplines. Based on this discussion, a definition of informal conversations is proposed, distinguishing them from interviews. Similarly, a distinction is made between two types of informal conversations depending on their intentional or unintentional alignment with research objectives. We propose some uses of interest for research are shown, and the need to include them in methodological designs, both in preliminary projects and final reports. We conclude by highlighting the usefulness of this type of interaction in longitudinal qualitative research. Jaime de la Calle-Valverde Copyright (c) 2025 Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales 2025-12-09 2025-12-09 83 https://cintademoebio.uchile.cl/index.php/CDM/article/view/82143 This paper explores the usefulness of the notions of generalization and symmetry as conceptual resources for studying heterogeneous phenomena. It discusses the utility of these notions for describing the behavior of similarity and equivalence of values within the plurality of cases that constitute the existence of a phenomenon over time and, with this, whether their modes of enunciation mark milestones within extended or broad processes. The text reviews the definitions surrounding the notions of plurality, generalization, and symmetry between cases, used both in philosophy and in social studies of science and technology; it exposes the controversies surrounding the generalization of symmetry proposed by Michel Callon; and it discusses the relevance of these solutions for the analysis of broad sociotechnical processes. It concludes that the notions explored not only serve to represent plurality in broad processes but are also complementary in describing the regimes of similarity and equivalence that they organize. Jorge Vergara-Vidal Copyright (c) 2025 Cinta de Moebio. Revista de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales 2025-12-09 2025-12-09 83