At 3:56 PM 11/12/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The important _caveat_ (which should also apply to the social >sciences) is that science should be subject to more questions than >Aronowitz lists. Sciences have to jump through more hoops that >literary criticism does: is the theory in question consistent with >known data, or at least more consistent with that data than are >alternative theories? is the theory in question logically >consistent or at least more logically consistent than the >alternatives? is there any way to take the theory and look at, >test, its implications in a new way that is not simply a >restatement of the data that the theory was developed to explain >or help us understand? Uh, Jim, isn't that like a big caveat and stuff? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
