Re: "rise of china" and wst

Sorry, but free will is anathema to a certain kind (namely, positivist)
science, not to science per se.  And although actions are conditioned by
(among other things) the sociocultural milieu, they do not, as Sherman
asserts, have an ultimately traceable chain of causation.  Different
factors of that milieu are emergent, and their emergence can be triggered
by choices on our parts.  

As for theories being useless if they do not predict the future, I suggest
looking up the etymology of the word "theory" in a good dicitionary.
Since sounding like a broken record appears to be the order of the day,
let me once again point out that to Wallerstein, theoretical models are
there to weigh significance and to help decide upon moral courses of
action.  Far from being an epistemological retreat, it is a necessary
corrective and balanced alternative to the disciplinary morass of
idiographic and nomothetic social sciences (among the latter is the work
of Chase-Dunn et al, according to _Hold the Tiller Firm_). Were
_Unthinking Social Science_, the work of the Gulbenkian Commission and the
Braudel Center's own Structures of Knowledge Research Working Group all
for naught?


On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:

> 
>       The notion of "free will" is indeed a chimera, unacceptable to
> both social and natural science.  To the extent that our behaviors are
> determined by the sociocultural milieu, we are not free.  To the extent
> that any remaining behaviors are determined by genetic factors and
> personal experience from the womb onward, we are not free.  B.F. Skinner
> said it long ago.  Freedom is an illusion fostered by our ignorance of all
> the determinants of our behavior.  Nonetheless, we perceive ourselves to
> be, within limits, free.  That perception is also real, even if founded in
> ignorance.  Deal with it!
> 
>       Warren
> 
> 
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> >  
> >  The bigger issue, however, is (as always) the (mis)conceptualization of
> >  WST as a positivist theory.  Of course, the Owl of Minerva business
> >  applies to it as much as to any other theoretical framework.  In this
> >  case, however, we have Wallerstein's explicit statement that we are in a
> >  period of systemic transition, when traditional rules no longer apply
> > 
> > Remind me again--why exactly are we supposed to declare 'anything goes'?
> > 
> > , and
> >  free choice dominates over established structures 
> > 
> > I've never understood how one can reconcile 'free choice' with the concept 
>of social science.  Religious believers in free choice believe the creator 
>endowed his favorite creation (man) with this capacity--why should anyone else 
>believe it?  Determinations may be so complex that they defy predictability, 
>this, however, does not mean actions cease to have causes.  And if they have 
>causes, it is difficult to know what 'free choice' means..  No matter how 
>chaotic the current period is/becomes, everything that happens will probably 
>be explicable by looking at what came before (in different temporalities).  As 
>always, efforts to control the process of change will be severely compromised 
>by the many forces beyond the control of those trying to do the controlling.
> > 
> > 
> >   This means that past precedents of
> >  hegemonic transitions may be largely useless in elucidating (much less
> >  predicting) the outcome of the current transition (though Wallerstein
> >  himself sometimes forgets this in practice).
> > 
> > Thank goodness!  Otherwise it would appear that his entire project of 
>illuminating the processes of the world system is basically a waste of time...
> > 
> > Steven Sherman
> > 
> > 
> >  r+M1462@csf.colorado.edu>
> >  Received: from  rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com
> >          [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd05.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; 
>Thu,
> >          01 Mar 2001 02:43:50 -0500
> >  Received: from  csf.colorado.edu (csf.colorado.edu [128.138.129.195])
> >          by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2001
> >          02:43:41 -0500
> >  Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=csf.colorado.edu) by
> >          csf.colorado.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #2) id 14YNkH-0002pI-00; 
>Thu,
> >          01 Mar 2001 00:43:29 -0700
> >  Received: from bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu
> >          (bc70219@bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu [128.226.6.4]) by
> >          csf.colorado.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/ITS-5.0/csf) with ESMTP id AAA10805 
>for
> >          <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:41:05 -0700 (MST)
> >  Received: from localhost (bc70219@localhost) by
> >          bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id
> >          f217etH29184; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:40:55 -0500 (EST)
> > 
> >  Subject: Re: "rise of china" 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu