generally agree. however here we should introduce a caveat--theories (as in natural sciences) differ much from theories in social science. If the latter can (and often is) proven right or wrong, in social sciences (or maybe I better use word "art," when one most often deals with abstractions which often are quite appealing (and sound, and elegant) theories are tantamount to ideologies, serving some purpose. It's a matter of faith, convenience or whatever we call it, but theories in social sciences can't be proved wrong. Social sciences rely too much on abstractions, while dealing with concrete subjects (contradiction is apparent, but there's nothing we can do about it). Danger is in my view ...

generally agree. however here we should introduce a caveat--theories (as in natural sciences) differ much from theories in social science. If the latter can (and often is) proven right or wrong, in social sciences (or maybe I better use word "art," when one most often deals with abstractions which often are quite appealing (and sound, and elegant) theories are tantamount to ideologies, serving some purpose. It's a matter of faith, convenience or whatever we call it, but theories in social sciences can't be proved wrong. Social sciences rely too much on abstractions, while dealing with concrete subjects (contradiction is apparent, but there's nothing we can do about it). Danger is in my view in truly believing in those abstractions, forgetting that reality is both much more complex, but also much simpler than any useful abstractions social sciences try to invent.