Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

["Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:25:10 -0500,
Gunnar Tomasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote,

>Re. the following:
>
>> I also would like to ask how accurate it is to reduce
>> the differences between mainstream and non-mainstream
>> economics to the number of axioms they employ in their
>> models.

>Comment:

>Good point.
>
> An "axiom" is a metaphysical concept - it denotes what we
> take as "given" for some particular piece of deductive
> reasoning, be it A, B, or C.

> And, provided our reasoning is sound, it is meaningless to
> compare A, B, and C with one another.
>
> For A, B, and C are non-overlapping - they are to one another
> as, say, the rules/games of (a) Chess, (b) Contract Bridge,
> and (c) Gin Rummy.

Given the premise, stated at the last, the conclusion
is sound. The point that Paul Davidson has been making
for, what, thirty, forty years? has been regarding the
alternative case where A and B overlap because A is a
strict subset of B.  Of course, this aspect is not
readily apparent as B as normally stated, and the
substance of the type of argument that Paul is making
is in making the translations.

If you show that the mapping that he has drawn between
the two sets of axioms are invalid, then you undermine
his argument.

Of course, it helps that instead of rules for
playing Chess and Bridge, we are talking about
theories regarding Bridge playing societies.