On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        It appears that an important property of these three types of econometric approaches is not quite equivalent to the system of behavioral rules exclusive to the agent. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a case of international conflict of a different nature is unspecified with respect to the strong generative capacity of the theory. Presumably, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial delimits the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model. Of course, the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method is not to be considered in determining the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). Conversely, any associated supporting element suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.

        We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the vast literature of the social and political sciences does not readily tolerate problems of static and socio-morphometrical analysis. Comparing these examples with their socio-ecological counterparts, we see that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. To provide a constituent structure for this politico-social process, relational information is, apparently, determined by a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. In the discussion of Chomskian hierarchies given above, the notion of linguistic complexity is not subject to a descriptive fact. From this, it follows that the systematic use of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with hierarchy in the Chomskian sense of language theory.

Next paragraph            What is this all about?            How does it work?