IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Replying to an old posting here by Ajit. The issue raised here is what the nature of causation in science and economics should be. I would argue that what science does is not so much uncover causes but uncover symmetries and constraints. To take a paradigmatic instance: the Newtonian laws of motion do not deal with causes, they uncover constraints on the feasible configurations of physical systems in time and space. They are constraints on 4 dimensional space. The structure of something like Sraffa's price system is similar. It establishes a set of constraints on what is feasible, given certain assumptions. In this sense it is not causal either. > Andy _____________________ Hi, Andy! Because economic theory does not have to be an empiricist philosophy of knowledge. Hume himself did not follow his empiricist philosophy in his other works because his philosophy ultimately leads to nihilism. But that does not mean that the philosophical problem he raised for empiricist knowledge, particularly for the implied relation of cause and effect, is all bunk. It shows us the limitation of what we claim to know. Now, we all know that all sciences are predictive, i.e. built on the relation of cause and effect. But science is not in a business of proving anything--it is neither philosophy nor mathematics. In some Kantian sense science simply takes the relation of cause and effect as a priori or its fundamental belief or axiom. On this basis it only tentatively suggests certain causal explanations for various phenomena. But these theories must always remain tentative and can never prove its correctness beyond doubt. The main role of science is to act as a medicine that sooths our mind by giving some sort of order to desperate phenomena--it keeps us from going crazy! That's an admirable job and economics can be part of it. But it is also good to know the limitations of what we claim to know. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
- Re: [OPE-L] Gilian Hart, "Denaturalizing Dispossession", (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Gilian Hart, "Denaturalizing Dispossession", Gerald_A_Levy Mon 24 Jan 2005, 13:21 GMT
- [OPE-L] manifesto, glevy Mon 24 Jan 2005, 12:49 GMT
- [OPE-L] Oekonomiekritik und Grundrisse, Gerald_A_Levy Sun 23 Jan 2005, 17:51 GMT
- [OPE-L] missing posts?, OPE-L Administrator Fri 21 Jan 2005, 13:33 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Hume, Paul Cockshott Fri 21 Jan 2005, 11:20 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Hume, Gerald_A_Levy Fri 21 Jan 2005, 13:25 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [OPE-L] Hume, Paul Cockshott Fri 21 Jan 2005, 16:18 GMT
- [OPE-L] transcending/eliminating time, dynamics, life, death?, Gerald_A_Levy Sat 22 Jan 2005, 14:26 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Hume, Gerald_A_Levy Sun 23 Jan 2005, 10:44 GMT