Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. In other words, only indviduals can determine their own sources of happiness.
His country is overstretched, losing economic momentum, losing world leadership, and losing the philosophical plot. However, he also thinks that theories are conventions and definitions of concepts, not true descriptions of physical phenomena based necessarily on experimental results. But in reality the sameness of the universe upon which science is predicated is not a a sameness at any particular moment, but rather a sameness of behavior.
Slightly more abstractly, think of a rubber sheet stretched and twisted into any configuration you like so long as there are no holes, tears, creases, black holes or sharp corners.
This at least is the goal.
So, in a sense, the special orthognal matrices look like a sphere.
It might seem the opposite, that if the physical laws are eternal and universal time is actually opposed to this insofar as it represents dynamism, change.
Therefore, the increasing wealth of the society will not increase happiness because people measure their well-being relative to the group, not by their absolute prosperity.
Freedom is not an act or a thought, but rather a set of conditions under which action and thought occur. Now do it with another pair of points, but make sure they meet somewhere else.
His theory is that above a certain level of material subsistence people are motivated primarily by status-seeking and the desire for a high rank within their social group.
If one does not wish to be this deterministic about it, perhaps one should allow more latitute to individuals to discover their own conception of happiness. America is running into the sand.
America at one end is now easily outweighed by any substantial grouping at the other, and most of those powers are on friendly terms with each other.
Which may be consistent with his general point, but not with his idea of increasing happiness by manipulating income levels.
Without the steady march of time, this unity of behavior disappears, and there are simply a million disparate entities.
So is the surface of a donut, or a saddle, or an idealized version of the rolling hills of your favorite pastoral scene. I think that that is neither true nor a good value.
The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal.
But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction.
That formulation is, as I believe I have said before, perfectly monstruous. America at one end is now easily outweighed by any substantial grouping at the other, and most of those powers are on friendly terms with each other. His country is overstretched, losing economic momentum, losing world leadership, and losing the philosophical plot. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all. In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time. To some extent this seems to cut against the basic scientific impulse to simplify, to generalize, which is what a law or an equation generally does.
The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal.
Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Now do it with another pair of points, but make sure they meet somewhere else. But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction.