RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Assuming that ETIR refers to ECONOMIC THEORY IN RETROSPECT, I don't own a
copy. Could you please give one example? I don't see why we're "at an
impasse regarding this issue" if you could provide an example. -- JD

> 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
>