{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021708683473389355, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028011204481792717, 'mean_word_length': 5.21304347826087, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Taking Sides : From Coherent Practice to Macro Organization

Is theory in the social sciences necessarily ad hoc, provisional and shifting, mere description of patterns that are conditional on historically contingent outcomes? Or can theorems (provable consequences) provide, to some degree, a more secure grounding or basis for aspects of social theory (e.g., Boyd 1969)? A clarification is in order to see these two views as complementary rather than antithetical. Mathematical theorems are intended to demonstrate the equivalence of different properties of models of some phenomenon, or identify which properties logically imply others. Can this help to identify what properties of a social system are logically related? Surely, whatever one’s view of theory, it would be useful to know that if one property is present, then a logically implicated property will also be present, even if only from the way the two properties are defined. When mapped to empirical phenomena, we might also try to understand a general process as a theoretical implication of this sort (following from definitions of first principles) that unfolds in a characteristic time scale, implying a dynamic. Different levels of a given problem might thus be logically and dynamically linked, and models that both apply to the phenomena under study and that show how levels are linked dynamically can provide a theoretical explanation for what we observe.