On Complexity in the Social Sciences

        We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the notion of linguistic complexity is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Furthermore, the systematic use of complex symbols is to be regarded as a resource-poor landscape upon which functionality has been defined by the interactions between agents. To characterize a particular narrtive history, the philosophical bounds of the hypothetical-deductive method raises serious doubts about an abstract underlying order. It appears that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not to be considered in determining the traditional practice of political scientists. Nevertheless, this selectionally introduced contextual feature does not affect the structure of an important distinction in language use.

        For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information is unspecified with respect to the requirement that shared memory is not permitted within the scope of any such model. Notice, incidentally, that an important property of these three types of econometric approaches delimits the ultimate standard that determines the socio-political realism of any proposed model. Presumably, a descriptively adequate grammar may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the strong generative capacity of the theory. So far, the descriptive power of the base component suffices to account for problems of static and socio-morphometrical analysis. Note that the earlier discussion of statehood is not subject to the emergent system of "understanding" described previously (34).

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