Re:

[enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Nilsson)]

The following seems to me to be similar to the logic: dogs have four legs;
therefore, all animals with four legs are dogs.

>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.

Perhaps HG and the mainstream have the same theory of theories (which I
don't think they do).  But does this means that he is of the devil's camp
without being aware of it?  Perhaps his theory of theories is correct
independent of whether certain mainstream thinks also hold it.  (By the way,
I don't think HG's theory of theories is right).

In general, I don't find very convincing claims that because the
neclassicals do it, it is a neoclassical thing and, therefore, we don't want
to do it.  After all, the neoclassicals not only use particular math, many
of them also use English and publish in journals.


Eric Nilsson
Department of Economics
California State University, San Bernardino
enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
909-880-5564