At least I found it thought-provoking-- and on many levels. Here's why:
- On the one hand, I believe that all human social interaction can be explained through a fractal function of cognition. So, in that sense, I believe that reductionism is possible in a fractal sense.
- On the other hand, I agree with the J. E. King's quote of Kincaid is correct in arguing that reductionism is not possible when it comes to social sciences. Why? Because social sciences are not part of the natural world but an entirely human construct meant to secure, entrench and perpetuate the power of the dominant faction of society (aka, "the elite"), which is a long-winded way of saying that the social sciences are, first and foremost, propaganda. I cannot see how one can reduce fiction to fact.
- As a complete aside, as no hands are available, it strikes me that King may be a neoliberal in Post Keynesian clothing because his anti-reductionist argument works in the favor of orthodox neoliberal economics and against heterodox economic theories. For example, Steve Keen well-reasoned attacks on the shaky (read non-existent) "microfoundations" of neoliberal macroeconomics are what give his macroeconomic theories their weight: by creating a theory of microeconomics that address the existence of money, credit and banking, his macro theory is logically consistent and creates a proper foundation for a new theory of finance. I fear that King's work may well be used to "disappear" Post Keynesian analysis, just as prior economic theories have been disappeared.
