Chomsky and no social science theory

[Carrol Cox]

Definitions of _what_ a theory is differ a good deal. I don't believe
that so far on this thread much attention has been give (a) to what
_Chomsky's_ definition of theory is (what _is_ it that he is rejecting),
and (b) what other conceptions of theory might be available to set
against Chomsky's. 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?

Is Chomsky merely saying that no social theory can be _demonstrated_ as
definitely true? Or is he saying that there is no such thing as a social
theory -- that alleged social theories are nisnomers?

Carrol