As many others have said, among the *hard* sciences* physics has been one of the most successful.
Nuclear weapons began as theoretical models describing the relationship between matter and energy. The Manhattan Project verified and refined these ideas to our dismay. The cause and effect chain between idea and act is clear.
*Capital* is a very important work (to say the least), which describes the workings of the dominant system and presents an elegant theoretical model.
Can we say that theories produced by Marx and others in the humanities or social sciences possess the same precision and predictive power as those employed by the physicists?
Is there, in other words, an equivalent Manhattan Project-esque success (so to speak) demonstrating the usefulness of *soft* science theories?
If the answer is no, this may be the difference Chomsky's talking about and the reason he uses, in the interview posted, *smart ideas* in place of *theory*.
...
This is a question posted for debate not a statement of belief one way or the other. I'm curious to learn what examples can be offered and in what ways my premise is flawed.
DRM