Yes, I am a strict logical positivist. Without reproducibility and meta-analyses (or rigorous empirical observation as in climatology, paleontology, etc.), no theory exists, because no meaningful and logically-consistent observations have been made.<p>I used Foucault&#x27;s theories as an example, but if you think I am &quot;making stuff up,&quot; then I would be pleased to hear your opinions about the other theorists and researchers who admit to the subjectivity and reporting bias intrinsic to the social sciences and instead formulate more &quot;theory&quot; with which to explain and evaluate the behaviour of chaotic systems.<p>I am not your buddy. I am not making up strawmen, nor do I dismiss the work of researchers without having gained at least a dilettante&#x27;s familiarity with the field.<p>I am fascinated by cultures, history, human behaviour, etc. However, I am skeptical of &quot;experimental conclusions&quot; which arrive from surveys and observations of cultures. Incredibly noisy data.<p>Furthermore, I object to the ambiguation of a term like &quot;science,&quot; which exists to connote the certitude of rigorous observations and analyses of systems, and to bestow a certain truth value upon these observations, to describe studies for which our best explanations for observed behaviours are guesswork.<p>I do believe that human beings, as tribal animals, are (sometimes, and with the possibility of override) governed by evolved ingroup&#x2F;outgroup behaviours, and that this seems as likely an explanation as any for all the myriad strife in the world. Beyond that? It&#x27;s anyone&#x27;s guess.