Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[Andrew Mearman <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Leonardo's introduction of Sheila Dow into this
discussion is very pertinent.  I fear, though,
Leonardo, that some of the implications of Dow's
Babylonianism might be considered quite radical. For
instance, she cautions against foundationalism, long
chains of deductive logic, closed analytical systems,
certainty of premises, etc., etc.  She also argues
that schools of thought are defined in terms of their
"vision," i.e., some way of interpreting the reality.
This all would seem to imply that the notion of basing
a school of thought on a fundamental theoretical axiom
is somewhat difficult.  (Dow also seems to accept
well-established philosophical arguments against
universalizing theories.)

Yet in theoretical terms I would have thought that
most people on this list would consider her a Post
Keynesian. Maybe this means that we should define Post
Keynesianism, heterodoxy, or whatever, in
methodological terms.  This argument was made by Steve
Dunn in the JPKE recently. This also seems to be (part
of) Tony Lawson's argument.  Indeed, it would seem
that a notion of heterodox is easier to conceive of
methodologically than theoretically. Moreover (again
drawing on Sheila Dow) this allows for some
theoretical pluralism. Mind you, Dow's avoidance of
dualism might also lead her to reject the term
"heterodox," as merely "non-orthodox"!

Andrew



--- Leonardo Vera <lvera@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think we need to understad that visions are
> different among heterodox or
> non-mainstream economists. For instance, some
> american post-keynesians keep
> a perspective of reality which gives direction and
> purpose to their
> intellectual activity within the discipline. This
> vision led them to
> believe that uncertainty, historial time, money and
> contracts are the raw
> materials for economic analysis of capitalism. The
> main issues are business
> cycles and the persistance of unemployment. But
> post-keynesian/marxians or
> sraffians may have a different vision that tells
> them where to look for the
> answers to economic problems. Even the "economic
> problem" can be a little
> different. Sraffians and many other post-keynesians
> direct attention to the
> process of accumulation and income distribution (I
> would say neo-classicals
> concentrate their attention in optimal allocation).
> They may say, for
> instance, that capitalism is a class-divided
> society, that the ownership of
> the means of production and the existance of a
> surplus of output is an
> important source of conflict between social classes
> and so on...Who is
> wrong or right?.. Nobody..there is no uniform way of
> takling all
> issues...even any attempt to synthesize behind what
> Paul calls a "single
> logical axiomatic foundation that provides the most
> general theory case,
> i.e., Keynes's' GT," may be a misplaced excercise if
> reductionism
> predominates. Presuming that all useful analysis and
> results can be derived
> from axioms which define the origins of the universe
> is what Sheila Dow
> calls the Cartesian/Euclidean mode of thought.
>
> There is no need for 'heterodox approaches" to be a
> logical tower of Babel.
>  They could be babylonians modes of thought in the
> sense of their
> adaptability in the face of different problems.
>
> Leonardo Vera
>
>
>
>
> At 02:54 p.m. 23/08/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >As I am one of the persons who promoted heterodox
> economics, I agree with
> Mat and Gary assessment.  I have written a paper on
> the history of the
> Association for Heterodox Economics which contains a
> short explanation of
> why I adopted the term.  If anybody would want to
> read the paper, please
> e-mail me at leefs@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >Fred Lee
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mongiovg [mailto:mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 1:17 PM
> >To: Forstater, Mathew; Mason Clark
> >Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots
> >
> >
> >Mat hints at an interesting point when he refers to
> the old days, before the
> >label heterodox became common.  Then a lot of
> different traditions fit
> >comfortably (more ot less) under the heading of
> Post Keynesian economics. In
> >the two decades since the discontinuance of the
> Trieste summer schools,
> these
> >different traditions have become much more insular,
> to the point where
> --oh, I
> >don't know, let's say-- Post Keynesiansm defines
> itself in a way that
> doesn't
> >leave much room for Sraffians or Marxists; and the
> Sraffians and Marxists
> have
> >to some extent done the same.
> >
> >I'm not  nuts about the label "Heterodox Economics"
> either.  But I like the
> >fact that it's a big tent that encourages discourse
> across all
> non-mainstream
> >traditions; hell, there's even room for the
> Austrians.  The Assn for
> Heterodox
> >Economics is a terrific development in this regard.
> The next step is to
> become
> >a significant enough voice that some of the sharper
> mainstreamers will
> have to
> >engage with us--as they did, at least in some
> degree, with Radicals, Post
> >Keynesians and Sraffians in those thrilling days of
> yesteryear. It's a
> >long-shot, but not outside the realm of the
> possible.  All the mosre
> reason to
> >make sure the discourse is collegial and of high
> quality.
> >
> >Mat's also right to say that there's no turning
> back now.  ("The
> >Anti-Neoclassical League" anyone?)  Once a phrase
> turns up on someone's
> >letterhead, it's an institution.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >>===== Original Message From "Forstater, Mathew"
> <forstaterm@xxxxxxxx> =====
> >>Mason - Many people do not like the term
> heterodox.  (Some don't like
> >>the term "orthodox" either--someone on here once
> cleverly suggested
> >>"homodox" in its place!).  But you should
> understand two things, at
> >>least:
> >>
> >>1) I am old enough to remember the pre-"heterodox"
> days. (I even
> >>remember when there was no such term as
> "Sraffian"--it was
> >>"neo-Ricardian" or subsumed under Post Keynesian).
>  There were Marxists,
> >>neo-Marxists, Institutionalists, Post Keynesians,
> Austrians, Feminists,
> >>Social economists, etc.  In other words, there was
> no term to bring the
> >>various "non-mainstream" (that won't do, either)
> groups together.  And
> >>for many reasons, many people--especially those
> whose economics was not
> >>confined to one branch only--felt it was important
> for there to be an
> >>umbrella to cover them all.
> >>I don't know anyone who *loves* the term--but what
> is better?  Sorry,
> >>but "modern" and "correct" don't quite do the job.
>  Our department often
> >>uses "pluralism" (as does ICAPE, if I remember
> correctly) but that
> >>really doesn't satisfy the same objectives
> (pluralism refers to
> >>openness, and includes neoclassical).
> >>
> >>
> >>2) It is too late. Once you have several
> organizations, conferences, an
> >>on-line journal, etc., it is institutionalized.
> >>
> >>Mat
> >
> >
> >
>
> _____________________________
> Leonardo  Vera
> Universidad Central de Venezuela
> FACES, Escuela de Economía
> Caracas, 1050
> Venezuela.
> Tel. 753-5281 y 0416-6272401
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com