What are we talking about when we talk about having a
>historical theory? I assume, for example, that all "social science"
>theories are historical theories. Is that assumption valid? Why? Why
>not?
No. Rational choice theory, game theory, and neoclassical economics are
ahistorical. So too is Chomsky's transformational grammar.
>
>Is Chomsky merely saying that no social theory can be _demonstrated_ as
>definitely true?
Depending on what you mean by "demonstrat5ed," e.g., if you mean like a mathematical theory, this is true of any emporical theory.
Or is he saying that there is no such thing as a social
>theory -- that alleged social theories are nisnomers?
>
>
I took him to mean this.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp