Re: [Pen-l] Question on overdetermination

["Jim Devine" <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

raghu wrote:
> Is Marxism a scientific theory? I don't know but I have another question:
> who cares? Everyone has their own definitions of "scientific" and even
> well-known ones like Popper's are far from being unambiguous.

good question. Even though economics, political economy, and Marxism
are not (and never will be) "sciences" by the usual standards, it's
good to _try_ to be scientific. That is, we should think logically,
consider evidence seriously, and try not to leave out relevant
information.

> ...  The only thing that really matters is: Is
> theory X *useful* as an intellectual device in making sense of observed
> facts? Marxism is useful. Freudism is useful. For that matter neo-classical
> economics is useful too. Is that not a good enough reason to study and
> understand something?

I think that it's part of the "scientific faith" that the kind of
scientific thinking I sketched above is useful.

I do worry: useful for _whom_? Freudianism is useful for tranfering
money from Woody Allen's pocket to some shrink's pocket. Does it do
anything more?
-- 
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l