I am greatly obliged to Mr. Williams and the editor for the republication of numerous passages from my recent book. I especially appreciate Mr. Williams' contribution of a magnificent answer to those of my critics who contend that my book is largely devoted to belaboring a straw man because our generation no longer holds any of the views I attack. Even though my views are both misquoted and out of context in his presentation, I must say that they never looked (...) better to me than in the light of his criticism. On the other hand, it would certainly never have occurred to me to reply to an effusion of this sort except for the editors' request for comment. If I failed in my little book to make clear my position, as I obviously did in the case of Mr. Williams, I see small prospect of doing so in the few paragraphs here at my disposal. Since the essays to which he objects originally appeared in a popular magazine which, I believe, is known for the rigor of its editorship, at least so far as clarity is concerned, Mr. Williams' inability to understand them are the more disturbing. I will give only a few examples. (shrink)

It is the thesis of this paper that the term scientific law can and should mean in the social sciences exactly what it means in any of the other sciences. There seems to be considerable agreement among scientists as well as others that a scientific law is a generalized and verifiable statement, within measurable degrees of accuracy, of how certain events occur under stated conditions. If I were to attempt a more specific statement I would say that a law is (...) a group of verbal or mathematical symbols designating an unlimited number of defined events in terms of a limited number of reactions so that the performance of specified operations always yields predictable results within measurable limits. (shrink)