Years ago, I used to hear the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Max Planck talking to Keynes. Seems that as an undergraduate Planck was undecided between physics and economics. He chose physics on the grounds that economics was "too difficult" --i.e., too many variables. Larry Shute At 12:09 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Jim Devine wrote: > >>yeah, but I don't expect that social science can or will be able >>to answer these questions, since the object of study (people, >>society) is much more difficult than that of, say, physics. But >>we should at least try. > >Difficult? Don't know about that; it's a lot easier to be an amateur >sociologist (or economist even!) than amateur quantum physicist. Less >predictable, maybe. > >But your position, Jim, sounds quite the opposite of what Aronowitz and the >social construction crowd argues. To them, the truth claims of the "hard" >sciences are no different from those of the "soft" ones (and no doubt my >choice of words there betrays my phallogocentrism). > >Doug > >---- > >Doug Henwood >[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >phone: +1-212-874-4020 >fax: +1-212-874-3137 > >
