{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030666666666666665, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010666666666666666, 'mean_word_length': 4.646616541353383, '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}}
Systems and Emergence, Rationality and Imprecision, Free-Wheeling and Evidence, Science and Ideology

I am grateful to Axel van den Berg (2001) for having reviewed generously and lively, as well as at great length, my book Social Science under Debate (henceforth SSUD) (Bunge 1998). But, while he has praised the originality and breadth of this work, my critic has also complained that it taught him nothing new, and that in matters of fact I have asked my readers to take me at my word. Since these criticisms suggest that I have failed to make certain points clearly or explicitly enough, allow me to clarify a few of them. I will class the points in question into three groups: philosophical puzzles, matters of social theory, and matters of fact.