>Who says either of these things? Chomsky says producing and acquiring
>theory "can be hard work." The fact that the smart ideas are simple doesn't
>mean they are easy to come by or absorb. Likewise, having simple theories
>doesn't mean explanations of reality will be simple. Simplicity and clear
>explanation are not necessarily coterminous. Take Herman and Chomsky's
>theory of the commercial media, for instance. The theory is simple and
>clear, yet the explanation of the institutions it highlights is quite
>complicated.
Something may seem simple after you've mastered it, but before you do it can be complex as hell.
>It's interesting to hear your thoughts on this topic, which I find pretty
>surprising. I perceive your own work as being a model of clarity and
>maximal simplicity, with minimal theoretical mumbo-jumbo interference.
>(Isn't all science an effort at rational simplification?) Reading you, I'd
>have thought you'd be likely to heartily endorse Chomsky's view of theory.
>It's obvious you bust your butt to come up with your results and that what
>you do requires serious expertise about arcane processes, but I have never
>sensed that you feel much indebted to Big Theory. What am I missing?
I'm pretty indebted to the classics - Marx, Freud, the Frankfurters - though it may not always show. Theories don't come much Bigger than those. And a lot of people found the "theory" chapters of Wall Street heavy going, even though I thought they were pretty transparent.
Doug