Re: : Premises, Circularities

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:42 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:22525] RE: Re: RE: Premises, Circularities etc was Re: Historical Materialism


Ian Murray wrote:
>>> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has circularities of
it's own.<<<

I wrote:>>what circularities are those? and why is circularity bad, unless
there is nothing to the theory but circularities? Physics and geometry, for
example, both involve circularities (e.g. force is defined by mass times
acceleration, but mass is defined by force/acceleration and acceleration is
defined by force/mass).<<

====================

Take a peak at ETIR chapter 7; I'm not gonna sum up the chapter and all the other counter claims...

Not all circularities are bad, true, but some are debilitating and clearly we are at an impasse
regarding this issue.....Again.

Ian