stats

Jukka Laari jlaari at tukki.jyu.fi
Fri Aug 19 10:55:54 MDT 1994


On Fri, 19 Aug 1994, Doug Henwood wrote:

> I don't understand the point of this. The statistical apparatus issues
> reams and reams of numbers. They can't be consumed raw. You have to know
> how they're collected, what assumptions they involve, what
> interpretations they come with. Of course. But how can we understand
> social reality without them?

How people understood (their) social realities before?

If you say that they didn't, you underestimate them (in a matter of fact
you're insulting earlier generations).

If you say that they understood only partly, then I ask: was that, what
they understood, something non-sensical (kind of naive, 'untruthful
beliefs')?

How, then, they succeeded with their (knowledge concerning their)
societies and institutions so well that modern world is the one which
seems to be in a total, chaotic mess (and not, say, medieval societies
whether in Europe or in Asia)?

[I'm not saying, that modern world is a mess, but I guess that for some
people it seems to be - religious fanatics etc?]

And finally, what if they really did understood everything relevant or
essential of their social realities?

Jukka Laari


     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list