PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Pen-l] Re: money [was: Skidelsky on Keynes
- To: "Progressive Economics" <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Re: money [was: Skidelsky on Keynes
- From: "Jim Devine" <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:23:35 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=1iLmU+Oc005AwvI39rXMGIwpJethsyxyRsVen+CyzFs=; b=t8TjASYpcc+TyVXcijtxkud27djVElObuXPJ8F+/7nklaVtNcgcIW0vjwW3AsrG4bi A6nektqrrpVzZf1axfe1bjVHk85y8+LWnmqt8ZcTUwkqBDvFi8jLzSlSlBemWVqmig6V +aktnFwpmBz9DY5BTVLHmSra9VuEWaOsTgzNY=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Dm/txpe+GP6GFlWaSRqB9qev1SDUUDm4zjAugSrykmjXPeFGKZ0cmUhCzKuib1tnoH Q4Qc7oPp55e9gB9A0aWB14CZ0MNhRV6X21eoM8cgTCKqZH593aYrj8J2O5WFa9c3ivFI SrP42ECA7NdAl+KzQId9J7K4qSod7e9WV9x6w=
I quoted the Wiktionary:
> an axiom is a "self-evident and necessary truth; a
> proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; a proposition
> whose truth is so evident that no reasoning or demonstration can make
> it plainer." (from the Wiktionary) Instead of "self-evident," I'd say
> "true by general agreement in the context being discussed."
Shane;
> That definition seems unsatisfactory. The nature of an axiom, as I
> understand it, is that it follows with absolute certainty from the
> definitions of its terms. Thus, the Euclidian "Parallel Lines" is defined
> as two straight lines such that at all points in one the perpendicular line
> between them will have equal length. The axiom that "two parallel lines
> never intersect" is "self-evident" because for it to be untrue would
> contradict the definition of "parallel." "Non-Euclidian" geometry differs
> from "Euclidian" geometry in its definitions, from which different axioms
> necessarily follow.
Shane, you may well be right. Not being a mathematician, I can't say
that I know what the generally-accepted definition of "axiom" is. But
I'm pretty sure that it involves something that cannot be proved
logically or mathematically but instead to a premise for a logical
argument.
In any event, my discussion with John V. wasn't about the definition
of "axiom." He seems to embrace a totally totally-deductive vision of
how economics should be done, in which empirical generalizations are
called "axioms" (and there is some sort of virtue attached to
minimizing the number of axioms). On the other hand, I think that
economics must always involve a dialectic between empirical
observation and logical-deductive thinking.
--
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
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]