Visualizing Geospatial Information Uncertainty: What We Know and What We Need to Know http://www.geovista.psu.edu/publications/2005/MacEachrenCGIS_Vol32_No3.pdf

Social institutions are plastic, heterogeneous, and contingent. Human action and human nature are historically conditioned as well, in the concrete and ordinary sense that "character," "motivation," "knowledge," and "identity" are all historical products. The social sciences do not need to discover universal, timeless laws of society; such a quest is futile and inspired by a bad philosophy of science. But Rickert was right in doubting the sharp distinction between human action and the natural world ... we are not forced to choose between idiographic and nomothetic science;

http://www.aob.bg.ac.yu/~mcirkovic/

If we could predict the evolution of markets, we would not need markets in the first place. The recent development of [industrial] competition policy has focussed almost entirely on equilibrium model of ‘prices as signals’, in which profitable transactions are socially beneficial: indeed that their social benefit is demonstrated by their profitability. What about the other two elements, ‘markets as a process of discovery’ (Hayek, Market economies thrive on a continued supply of unreasonable optimism), ‘diffusion of political and economic power’ (constraining rent-seeking behavior [+ distributive justice])? [markets for ideas, markets for political action] -- http://www.johnkay.com/about/

the brain now acts as a central metaphor, a substitute for self, a way to explain mental health, a short-hand for why people are different. Neuroanthropology focuses on how social and cultural phenomena actually achieve the impact they have on people in material terms. Rather than assuming structural inequality is basic to all societies, neuroanthropologists ask how inequality differentiates people and what we might do about that.