Re: gross substitution

[knowware@xxxxxxxx (Tom Walker)]

William B. Ryan wrote:

>Then why is it also necessary to reject the ergodic axiom, which many
>philosophers say is the very basis of the scientific method?

Another basis of the scientific method is knowing where to draw the line.
Claptrap and quackery often comes in the guise of a ritualistic imitation of
science. A case in point would be Enrico Barone's 1908 essay, "The Ministry
of Production in the Collectivist State". Professor Barone (rhymes with
Baloney) reminds the credulous reader over and over that what HE is doing is
SCIENCE and he pronounces the word FACT in italics at every opportunity. The
methodical scientificity of Professor Barone's paper is well attested to by
the FACT that the whole demonstration is suffused with the differential
calculus, which as Professor Barone assures the reader removes any trace of
ambiguity.

Unfortunately Professor Barone left a slight ambiguity in his specification
of labour, which, if he had been familiar with the theoretical literature of
the previous 20 years or so he might have realised was fatal to the
calculus. An emmense edifice of mathematical economics has been built on
Professor Barone's rigourously "mathematical" but theoretically naive gesture.

regards,

Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm