Re: heterodoxers are crackpots AND logic

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

Re. the following:

> I'm sorry -- but the onus is on those who argue that deductive logic has
no
> role in discussing real world economics.

Comment:

The role of deductive logic "in discussing real world economics" is of the
kind where one sizes up the situation and, having done so, reasons one's way
to a policy option that would address the situation as one sees it.

In other words, deductive logic is brought to bear on "real world economics"
after one has arrived at a personal - hence inevitably subjective -
evaluation of the situation at hand.

This contrasts with Schumpeter's view of the role of deductive logic in
economics viewed as "a branch of logic" - a position, incidentally, which
Paul Samuelson professed to find incomprehensible.

But, then, Schumpeter was also of the view that there should be NO "schools"
in economics - that is to say, "mainstream" economics of the kind which
mirrors the subjective druthers of Samuelson et al.

For what it is worth, I am persuaded that there is a fundamental distinction
between deductive logic when applied in the context of economics as "a
branch of logic", on the one hand, and the application thereof in the
context of real-world economics, on the other hand.

In the General Theory, as I see it, Keynes attempted to integrate the two
"hands" into one with the result that it is neither Fish nor Fowl - a
view-point which Schumpeter expressed without reservation and, on account
thereof, was dismissed by others as envy-driven critic of the General Theory
by academics, who were snookered by Keynes's intellectual pretensions.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davidson" <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>
To: "Andrew Mearman" <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: heterodoxers are crackpots AND logic


> At 07:10 AM 8/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >With regard to logical consistency, I'm quite sure
> >heterodoxy or whatever would not want to be thought of
> >as being "illogical."  However what does it mean to be
> >"logical?"  This is not merely a semantic question:
> >people who might be called heterodox or PK use all
> >kinds of types of logic, such as deduction, induction,
> >retroduction, etc.  Returning to the work of Sheila
> >Dow, she rejects what she refers to as "classical"
> >logic, which requires certainty, dualism, closed
> >systems, etc.  She even claims that Keynes rejected
> >such logic. Keynes' TP after all espoused a "logical"
> >theory of probability, but one that was very different
> >to its rivals.
> >
> >Using deductive logic can of course be useful.  If
> >heterodoxers can show that orthodoxy is garbage by
> >using the logic most favored by it - for example in
> >Paul Davidson's work - that's powerful.  However,
> >Dow's argument is that the nature of the world itself
> >(or at least parts of it) might not lend itself to
> >classical deductive logic, thus rendering that logic
> >less powerful.
>
>
> I'm sorry -- but the onus is on those who argue that deductive logic has
no
> role in discussing real world economics. I think I have already
> demonstrated that can use deductive logic and deal with uncertainty
> despite  your statement that
>
> "the work of Sheila Dow, she rejects what she refers to as "classical"
> logic, which requires certainty, dualism, closed systems, etc. " I
>
> Is Keynes's (and my) work on liquidity and uncertainty and its
implications
> for employment, etc. irrelevant  or even worse -- for you state :
>
> "She [Shiela Dow] even claims that Keynes rejected such logic." So is
> Keynes's GT something Keynes would have rejected since it is based on
> axioms and deductive logic.  If you don't think so just read the passage
on
> page 16 of the GT :
>
> "Obviously, however, if the classical theory is only applicable to the
case
> of full employment, it is fallacious to apply it to the problems of
> involuntary unemployment-if there is such a thing (and who will deny it).
> The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean
> world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently
> parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight-as the only
> remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. YET, IN TRUTH,
> THERE IS NO REMEDY EXCEPT TO THROW OVER THE AXIOM OF PARALLELS AND TO WORK
> OUT  A NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. SOMETHING SIMILAR IS REQUIRED TODAY IN
> ECONOMICS."
>
> "In that case, one would use logic that
> >has some basis in the nature of the world.
>
>
> I think it is clear from this passage and what follows that Keynes was not
> only using deductive logic to attack the classical system for having
> "postulates ...[that] are applicable to a special case and not the general
> case" [ GT, p. 3] but also to present a deductive logical system that
could
> explain involuntary unemployment as the outcome of the actions of
> self-interest individuals in a market, money-using entrepreneurial
economy.
>
> I do not think you have proved the case otherwise by citing Sheila Dow or
> using the sound bite "different horses for different courses".  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.
>
> Paul
> Paul Davidson
> Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
> Economics Department - 523 SMC
> University of Tennessee
> Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
> phone # (865) 974-4221
> fax # (865) 974-1686
> home phone  (865) 692-0802
> http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html
>
>
>
>
>