PKT message, Re: Harvard etc. - Editorial Correction

Clifford:

I suggest the following answers to your questions:

> How do you know when you have the correct, most fundamental axiom?

Insofar as the physical universe is concerned, there is NO "correct, most
fundamental axiom" as distinct from what MAY be a "correct, most fundamental
SET of axioms," whose "discovery" by means of observation/intuition Einstein
held to be the "supreme task" of theoretical physicists.

NO such "correct, most fundamental SET of axioms" is conceivable with
respect to the universe of economic phenomena where, unlike the physical
universe, our Free (hence unpredictable) Will is either "fundamental" or
instrument of an unpredictable "divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew
them how we will". (Prince Hamlet in Act V, Sc. ii)

>... and how
> do you justify the use of a closed system of deductive logic to make
"truth"
> statements about the real economy?

Absent a "correct, most fundamental SET of axioms" relating to the universe
of economic phenomena, it is muddle-headed to suppose that ANY lesser
"closed system of deductive logic [can serve] to make "truth" statements
about the real economy."

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Poirot" <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Paul Davidson" <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Harvard rejects alternative eco course

> Since this question has now come up again-I will make an extreme pest of
> myself and ask one more time, since no one has been willing to give an
> answer thus far:
>
> How do you know when you have the correct, most fundamental axiom, and how
> do you justify the use of a closed system of deductive logic to make
"truth"
> statements about the real economy?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:rosserjb@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: Paul Davidson
> Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Harvard rejects alternative eco course
>
>
> Simply avoid making logically inconsistent remarks,
> like A is true and A is not true (I am ruling out intuitionistic
> math here). It is not inconsistent to say that A is true
> some of the time, under these circumstances, but not
> true some of the rest of the time, under these other
> circumstances. None of this requires laying out a
> formal axiomatic substructure for formal deduction.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Davidson" <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>
> To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Harvard rejects alternative eco course
>
>
> > At 01:27 PM 4/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > > If "rigor" means a formal axiomatic approach a la
> > >Debreu, then it is part of the problem. If by "rigor" one
> > >simply means being clear about what oen is assuming
> > >and being logically consistent in one's arguments, then
> > >I do not think it is part of the problem.
> >
> >
> > I fear, Barkley, that to many, the above will be making a distinction
> > without a diffeence. Can you explain how you can be logically
consistent
> > without using a"formal axiomatic base"?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>