Re: the post on Tom Barnett's blog. Dr. Barnett has misread my assertion. I'm not claiming that the idea of Core and Gap is aspirational; I'm claiming it's an hypothesis and requires prove of validity. Pointing to the lines on the map isn't proof. Dr. Barnett is assuming his conclusion (a fallacy called begging the question).
Re: Core v Gap -- is it really a hypohesis, or is it simply an organizing principal? If the former, you're correct -- there should be empirical evidence of "Gapness" that correlates to the geospatial definition. However, if it's an ontological construct -- cast in the mold of "bipolarism" -- then your criterion is too stringent.
sf/ shane
# posted by deichmans : Saturday, 06 October, 2007
Strategic reality (Dr. Barnett's characterization of Core and Gap) sounds like a little more than an organizing principle to me. The long and short of my objection is that I'm concerned about disprovability. Without rigorous definitions, Dr. Barnett's assertions are untestable, not disprovable, and, consequently, metaphysics.