ABSTRACT
In the final sentence of A General Theory of Crime, Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi note that they 'will be happy if our theory helps renew some intellectual interest in criminology, a field that once engaged the finest minds in the community' (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 275). Putting aside the arguable proposition that minds currently grappling with the subject of crime are less keen than those that tackled the subject in earlier years, the present critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi's work, seen beneficently, seeks to contribute to the ultimate happiness of the progenitors of what in disciplinary shorthand has come to be known as
For starters, we can juxtapose the dictum about theorizing by Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize physicist, to the position taken by Hirschi on the same issue. Feynman insists that full disclosure is a prerequisite for the responsible promulgation of a theory:
Details that could throw doubt upon your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory ... then you must put down all the facts that disagree with it.
