"The difference between the above and most pseudoscientific cyclical theories is that politics, economics, and sociology are by their nature subjective, unlike physics. Observations derived from these disciplines are rooted in opinion, not in empirical reality; hence, it is possible to construct just about any cyclical theory one wants from them."
This reads like an extremely poor interpretation of the social sciences. Many ideas in the social sciences are rooted in empiricism, and it's quite ridiculous to just act like they're immediately invalid or pseudoscientific. --Otend (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This entry does not make much sense. Basically it is dedicated to attacking the different and diverse kinds of cyclical theories under a positivist framework, although it never gives a strong argument beyond the type "sociology is not empirical".--126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)