Abstract
Using the war model of Isnard and Zeeman as a paradigm, it is shown that many catastrophe theory models in social science possess serious weaknesses. The catastrophes supposedly account for real-life behavior, but actually are only a restatement of the fact that discontinuities exist. No deep mathematical results are actually used. The hypotheses are ambiguous or far-fetched. In addition, Thom's theorem, the mathematical centerpiece of applied catastrophe theory, is inherently uninformative for applications. The theory is helpful on neither the qualitative nor the quantitative level. Finally, better and simpler mathematical tools exist.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
