>>> Voyou <
I doubt anyone who studies political theory or literary theory would disagree with your contention that " economics, politics, history, law, literature, are humanistic endeavors and are not ready, and may never be ready, for scientific theory making."
^^^^ CB: Of course, many who study political theory would disagree with this . Pretending like Marxism doesn't exist ( as bourgeois intellectuals did with Marx himself) won't make it go away. There is already a vast body of scientific theory and scientifically based practice of economics , politics , history , law , even literature. Marxism has a full critique of positivism.
By the way, the area of human activity that even anti-science types have a clue can be understood scientifically is language through linguistics. Chomsky is not the only linguist in the world. Literature can be understood scientifically through linguistics.
Furthermore, modern Western science itself models itself on jurisprudence as can be seen by its use of the term "scientific or natural _laws_". Laws, in the original sense, are rules of human conduct, as is custom or culture. ( Laws are state enforced customs) Human conduct follows lawful patterns, though of course laws are broken.
These lawful patterns of conduct are the basis for a science of that conduct, obviously fitting the fundamental scientific notion of a law. It doesn't matter that these laws are not as absolute as in physics. We can still refer to this knowledge as scientific. This ought rebuff all discussion on this thread that human activity is not subject to scientifc study or knowledge.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com