Re: more squiggly lines

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In forwarding one of my today's messages to Gang8, I prefaced it with the
following explanatory note which is responsive to John's point:

I have long been persuaded (a) that the Achilles Heel of modern economics
resides in its methodological pre-suppositions; (b) that the single most
important thereof is the pre-supposition that causal relations between
economic variables may be divined from econometric equations; (c) that it is
useless to engage academic economists in debate on this key methodological
aspect of all modern economics; whence it follows (d) that, as prelude to
exposing the shallowness of (b), few things are likely to be more potent
than a knock-out blow to the like methodological pre-supposition in
theoretical physics.

Earlier today, I posted the following (d)-related message to the PKT list.

Gunnar



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: more squiggly lines


>
> Doesn't this entire discussion reduce to the fact that man and thus
> science, is limited to seek the truth following induced axioms;
> while Gunnar's argument is that the (usually implicit) axioms are
> neither "facts" nor knowable, thus throwing everything into doubt?
>   If so, then it may be more productive to challenge economists on
> what assumptions their assertions are based on; and question their
> relevance, instead of invoking Newton and/or Einstein on this PKT
> forum.
>
> John V
>
>