[no subject]

[egglesto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Brian Eggleston)]

Herb Gintis recently argued that "... Only a better theory
displaces a theory.  And a critique is important for economic
theory only if it leads the way to a better theory."  This sounds
like a Samuelsonian canard.  If HG's intent was to provide a
capsule view of the methodological perspective of the majority of
orthodox economists, he probably succeeded.

But what constitutes a better theory?  Is it, tautologically
speaking, simply that which triumphs over another?  In the theory
game, can we be assured that "the best man will win"?  If best
means most palatable to and supportive of the dominant culture
(ideology, "school"), I suppose there is some "truth" here.

Surely criticism which unmasks embedded ideological aspects of a
given theory (or theory complex) is useful even if it does not lead
to theoretical improvement as viewed from the perspective of
orthodoxy.  (I am NOT accusing HG of being orthodox). If a theory
is "lousy" (a term as precise as "best"), what's wrong with
pointing fingers--even though one has no better alternative?  Must
all criticism be constructive criticism?  Does not some poking fun,
a la Veblen and others, have impact?

I'm sure that HG's comment that traditional theory will not collapse
under critique is largely true.  But what the hell.  If criticism
points even only a few people away from wrong-headed theory, the
world might be a better place.  I don't subscribe to the "if you
can't fight 'em, join 'em" philosophy.  (I am NOT accusing HG of
having done so.)

Brian Eggleston