no theory, sez Chomsky

[Hakki Alacakaptan]

I agree because formal theories - I'm guessing that's what he means - about
open-ended complex systems are a non-starter. Complexity rules out causality
and the non-discreteness of social systems means you can't formulate formal,
cartesian rules for them. You just can't have a formal theory of a continuum
and you can only have probabilistic - not deterministic - theories of
complex systems. In fact, transformational-generative grammar isn't a theory
either, it's a pro-AI ideology, because language is open-ended, not a system
with definable outer limits.

The challenge is to define what makes marxism a useful diagnostic/prognostic
tool. How do we define the effectiveness of a fuzzy-logic social theory like
marxism without relying on concepts like falsifiability (how can you falsify
something that's not precisely defined?)? Maybe we could assess the hit rate
of predictions made by marxists. How about putting up a vote page with
questions like: What will the US jobless rate be one year from now? How many
US citizens will be tried for political crimes or treason by the end of
2002? How many countries will the U.S. bomb in 2002? How many new U.S.
military bases will there be by 2004 in countries where U.S. military
operations took place during Enduring Freedom?

Hakki

 || -----Original Message-----

 || From: Doug Henwood

 ||

 || More Chomsky, from the Frontline interview: "n fact, there is almost

 || nothing in the social sciences that ought to be called a theory.

 || Human affairs are too complicated."

 ||

 || How can you think and talk without theories, even ones you don't

 || recognize as such?

 ||

 || Doug

 ||