[lbo-talk] The postmodern prince

[dave dorkin]

Why dont you ask him directly if you dont follow it?
He does take ample time to respond to email and I
would be surprised if he didnt answer yours. In any
event, there is nothing shallow about saying that
theory is an a strong word for the types of reasoning
and evidence capable of being offerered in most of
social science, especially when contrasted with
natural science. Capital is obviously an important
work but do you really imagine it is a theory
comparable to work in the natural sciences in terms of
available evidence, falsification criteria and so on? 

For my part, though I commonly work with social
science 'theories' and call them that, I see his
point. 

Dave


> This would throw, oh just to pick a random example,
> most of Marx's Capital out the window. So all the
phenomenal categories of visible  capitalism - wages,
interest, profit, dividends, rent - are all you  need
to know, and their sources and uses completely
transparent to  the uneducated eye. How can such a
smart man make such a deliberately  shallow argument?
Doug

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/