Abstract
The conceptual clarity of the formal theory of balance and the extent to which its basic axioms provide insights into the dynamics of structural balance are examined. Our concern is with the logical adequacy of the theory, and our analysis suggests that some of the definitions of the theory serve more as rules of syntax or derivations than as definitions of terms per se. We suggest that the authors of the formal theory overlooked numerous implications and that some of the theory's axioms and provisos exhibit redundancy. It is concluded that the theory, despite its defects, serves as an example of theories that possess properties of completeness and clarity and thus opens the way for the next stage in cumulative science—testing its implications. It is suggested that by clarifying the formal theory more precise and better theories can be built in cumulative steps.
Published Version
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 call