Re: heterodoxers are crackpots AND logic

[Andrew Mearman <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am not claiming to have all the answers; I'm asking
questions.  When one leading Post Keynesian economist
makes the case for deductive logic based on axioms,
while another asks whether deduction is valid at all,
doesn't this inevitably lead to questions?

In the deductive-nomological model, two premises, one
usually some kind of covering law, leads directly to a
conclusion.  This clearly assumes that neither do
other premises enter the argument, nor do the original
arguments somehow change or be changed.  This is under
the assumptions of "closed systems." Now, one of the
implications of an "open systems" methodology - which,
it was claimed recently in the JPKE to be the basis of
Post Keynesian economics - is precisely that other
premises could enter, and/or that the premises might
change and that consequently the conclusion reached is
very different to that reached  in the closed system.
Therefore, (oh dear, a deduction) a deduction MIGHT
lead to conclusions that are incorrect in an
open-systems world.  (It might not, of course.)

Thus, what basis is there to assume that he deduction
will, always and everywhere, be appropriate?  I think
that the onus is on those (and I'm speaking generally
here, to include neo-classicists) who wish to practice
deduction - particularly if they rule out other
methods - to prove their case.

As for my case, I've just argued why deduction might
be problematic.  However, at no point have I argued
that it CANNOT be useful.  My original post, said that
deduction might be "less powerful."

As for Keynes, I made NO claims about his work, apart
from reporting Dow's.  However, I did say that work
that uses deduction to disprove orthodox theory is
powerful, if only rhetorically, because it attacks
orthodoxy with its own tools.  This validates Keynes'
rhetorical strategy immediately.

As for questions as to whether Keynes' work is
irrelevant, or whether he himself would reject his own
GT, it should be clear that I do not believe that
Keynes' work is irrelevant, because I do not REJECT
deduction.  As for the second question, I should be
clear not to misrepresent Sheila Dow's work, for she
is careful to avoid "rejection," but she does seem to
suggest that Keynes' own logical work (in TP) is an
alternative to "classical" logic.  This does not mean
that I think that Keynes would (or should) reject his
own GT, though.  One reason is that as I said, Keynes'
work is powerful because it attacks the orthodox on
its own terms.

As for this question:

>What evidence do you have to indicate that Keynes's
GT
> does not provide the
> basis for developing logically the conditions in
> which involuntary
> unemployment occurs.

I haven't claimed anything like this.

I would like to know how those who use deduction are
certain that they have met the following criterion for
analysis:
>
> "In that case, one would use logic that
> >has some basis in the nature of the world." (my
previous post)
>

Regards,

Andrew.

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