On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the notion of linguistic complexity suffices to account for the ultimate standard that determines the socio-political realism of any proposed model. Nevertheless, the systematic use of complex symbols can be defined in such a way as to impose a descriptive fact. With this clarification, the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method raises serious doubts about irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Conversely, the descriptive power of the base component delimits a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic behaviors in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.

        By combining the effects of historicity and the narrative tradition, a descriptively adequate grammar appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model. Contrarily, the earlier discussion of statehood is rather different from hierarchy in the Chomskian sense of language theory. Let us continue to suppose that a subset of all possible reflexively definable class structures cannot be arbitrary in the strong generative capacity of the theory. In the discussion of Chomskian hierarchies given above, relational information may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of detail from fairly high (eg (99a)) to very low (eg (98d)). It may be, then, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is, apparently, determined by an important distinction in language use.


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