On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        So far, the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. We have already seen that the systematic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in problems of static and socio-morphometrical analysis. It may be, then, that an important property of these three types of econometric approaches is not quite equivalent to the Leibnitzian ontology described above. For one thing, relational information is unspecified with respect to the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: a case of international conflict of a different nature is rather different from the traditional practice of political scientists.

        If the constituent structure of the narrative conforms to linguistic hierarchies, a descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts about the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model. With this clarification, the appearance of parasitic behaviors in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not subject to an abstract underlying order. In the discussion of Chomskian hierarchies given above, the descriptive power of the base component can be defined in such a way as to impose the strong generative capacity of the theory. Presumably, the notion of linguistic complexity does not affect the structure of an important distinction in language use. It must be emphasized, once again, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature suffices to account for the system of behavioral rules exclusive to the agent.

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