Re: [gang8] On The Definition Of Economic Science

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

Kevin:

It has taken me some 25 years of on-and-off reflection to figure out what
Mill was talking about.

Along the way, I have been mindful of what I perceived up front to be
Schumpeter's insightful advice:

"Those who think they have caught John Stuart Mill in logical error are well
advised to think again."

Or words to that effect.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Donnelly" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] On The Definition Of Economic Science


> In message <003601c2bc0b$d3314980$bd51fea9@q1k2m4>, Gunnar Tomasson
> <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >The following Gang8 message of today's date summarizes my views on a
> >subject matter which John Stuart Mill addressed, inter alia, as follows:
> >
> >"The definition of a science," John Stuart Mill wrote, "has almost
> >invariably not preceded, but followed, the creation of the science
itself.
> >[...] And, in truth, there is scarcely any investigation in the whole
body of
> >science requiring so high a degree of analysis and abstraction, as the
> >inquiry, what the science itself is; in other words, what are the
properties
> >common to all the truths composing it, and distinguishing them from all
> >other truths.[...]  The definition of a science must, indeed, be placed
> >among that class of truths which Dugald Stewart had in view, when he
> >observed that the first principles of all sciences belong to the
philosophy
> >of the human mind." ('On The Definition Of Political Economy; And On
> >The Method Of Investigation Proper To It', Essays on Some Unsettled
> >Questions of Political Economy, London, Longmans, Green, and Co,
> >1877, pp. 120-122 - underlining added.)
> >
> >Gunnar
>
> So that's where our philosophy of education examiners got their
> questions c 1970 and 1971.  One year it was "Knowledge consists of a
> number of distinct autonomous forms.  Discuss".  The following year it
> was "Forms of knowledge are distinguished from each other by their
> criteria of truth. Discuss".
> Rather more difficult was this from a sociology paper (not my year,
> thankfully) "Sociology is as sociology does.  Is it?".  I had enough
> trouble with ethnomethodology, though it's less mysterious now.
>         Kevin
> --
> Kevin Donnelly
>