RE: [OPE] science, scientology, and economics

[GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>]

> Can any of you tell me whether the following is considered to be
> a legitimate mode of investigation in *ANY* science?
> 1. Pose a contemporary scientific question.
> 2. Look at the writings of a leading but deceased authority in the field to see
> what s/he had to say about a possibly related question.
> 3. Determine whether the answers offered by the leading but dead authority
> can be used whole or modified to answer the contemporary scientific question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
A follow-up question:
 
Is there any perspective on economics (other than Marxian) for which the above 
is considered acceptable and common practice?
 
It's not the case, imo, for Ricardian economists.
It's not the case, imo, for surplus approach economists.
It's not the case, imo, for Post-Keynesians.
It's not the case, imo, for mainstream (neo-neo-classical) economists.
It's not the case for Austrian economists - except, perhaps, for 
some (right) libertarian followers of von Mises.
It _may_ be the case, though, for some members of the Henry George Society (?).
 
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope