and distributional patterns independently is fallacious.
My third comment is in relation to Krishna Bharadwaj's treatment of the nature of the 'scientific' study of social issues. One question that she raises is whether social sciences share with physical and natural sciences a common method of arriving at scientific explanations and prediction. After going through some of the difficulties usually put forward to show that the procedures of enquiry of physical and natural sciences are not applicable in the social sciences she concludes: ".. .these do not, in my view, annihilate the possibility of a scientific study of social procedees. She warns about the common of treating the methods of physics as the sicientific method and 3 of identifying theory too closely with logical ordering and analysis, But except to suggest that social relations of man must be viewed in a historical perspective, there is very little indication of the characteristics of a scientific procedure for the study of society. It would have been much more useful if Bharadwaj had paid some more attention to this issue of method instead of her criticisms of Walras, Hayek, Friedman, Popper et at
