Fw: Say's Law and Operationalism - Tobin Addendum

["Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>]

The following is my response to an off-list communication of today's date on
the subject matter:

*************
> I do not question your motives - please do not question mine.
>
> As long-time student of the epistemological aspects of physical science, I
> have long been interested in the like aspects of theoretical economics.
>
> In this respect, I agree with Samuelson's statement on related issues, as
> stated in his Foreword to my 1964 Atheneum paperback edition of
> 'Foundations' which reads as follows:
>
> "Those concerned with general problems of philosophy of science and its
> methodology may find modern economics of considerable interest.  By this I
> do not mean that the methodological views of the venerable economist
Ludwig
> von Mises are more interesting than the positivistic views of his deceased
> brother, Richard von Mises, the distinguished physicist and mathematician.
> In my view they definitely are not.  But economics is by its nature a
softer
> and less exact science than, say, conventional physics.  Now in a hard,
> exact science a practitioner does not really have to know much about
> methodology.  Indeed, even if he is definitely a misguided methodologist,
> the subject itself has a self-cleansing property which renders harmless
his
> aberrations.  By contrast, a scholar in economics who is fundamentally
> confused concerning the relationship of definition, tautology, logical
> implication, empirical hypothesis, and factual refutation may spend a
> lifetime SHADOW-BOXING WITH REALITY.  In a sense, therefore, in order to
> earn his daily bread as a fruitful contributor to knowledge, the
> practitioner of an intermediately hard science like economics must come to
> terms with methodological problems.  I stress the importance of
intermediate
> hardness because when one descends lower still, say to certain areas of
> sociology that are almost completely without substantive content, it may
not
> matter much one way or the other what truths or errors about scientific
> method are involved - for the reason that nothing matters."  (p. ix)
>
> At age 15 - some 45 years ago - I decided to study economics because of my
> belief that the subject was of vital importance for the common good.
After
> finishing my General Exam for the Ph. D. at Harvard in 1965, I joined the
> IMF staff in 1966 and put my thesis work on hold.  When I picked up the
> thread again in the mid-1970s, I became almost immediately aware of what I
> construed as serious methodological problems in the mainstream approach to
> theoretical economics.
>
> These problems remain unresolved - and mainstream economists MAY still be
> "shadow-boxing with reality" without either knowing or caring that they
are
> doing so.
>
> Without "caring"?
>
> In the late 1970s, I outlined my critique of Samuelson's general
equilibrium
> concept and modus operandi in a letter to him.  He replied verbatim as
> follows:
>
> "There are few expert in both physics and economics, but I am confident
that
> any such will not agree that you have isolated a contradiction in my
> Foundations."
>
> To which I replied: "Issues in logic are to be resolved through reasoning
> and not through appeal to majority opinion."
>
> While that has remained my position, Samuelson has consistently declined
to
> address the substance of my methodological criticism of his approach in
> 'Foundations', salient aspects of which I have repeated in my PKT Forum
> postings in recent days.
>
> I regard his silence as unbecoming a "great" economist.
>
> Also, while it does not relate to the substantive points at issue, I
should
> note that in the early 1990s I had occasion to exchange a series of 4 or 6
> letters with Samuelson on his apparent off-record advice to IMF Management
> in the late 1970s on the merits of my research work in theoretical
> economics.
>
> Samuelson advised that his secretary could find no copies of any
> correspondence on the subject matter in his files but noted that,
throughout
> his career, he had frequently given comments to interested parties with
> respect to other people's research work.
>
> Gunnar