Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Davidson wrote:
>
>
>> ===== Original Message From Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx> =====
>> If we are fallibilists, what is the difference between intuition and guess?
> And if we can
>> have no scientific knowledge of first principles without engaging in circular
> reasoning or
>> question begging, what does it mean to say they are universal truths?
> Everyone thought the
>> axioms of Euclid were universally true until Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky and
> Reimann came
>> along.
>
>
> Everyoner thought axioms of  classical economics were universal truths --
> which they were -- but Keynes pointed out [p.3 of GT] that some of the
> classical axioms were NOT applicable to the real world.

Deciding which axioms are not applicable to the "real world" requires
a descriptive model of the "real world".

Consequently, the description of the "real world" is as important if not
more important than the axioms in question.

Should we expect our descriptions to be dispassionate? No.
However, in science we should expect them to be free of malice.

Harry Veeder