Re: Harvard rejects alternative eco course

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew, I assure you and the rest of the list this is no mere rhetorical
question. It goes to both the ontological and epistemological bases of
social theory.

I have posted on a few occasions before at some length, trying to justify
this question. I would do so again, but there is no apparent interest in
actually addressing the issues I raised. But briefly here it is:

In order to have the sort of system Paul is claiming, we must live in a
social world where Plato's concept of the eidos holds true. Secondly, this
eidos must be "a priori" true. This is no insult or red herring-there are
any number of people who hold consciously to this ontological and
epistemological position in economics.

however, those who do so, AFAIK, have never addressed Aristotle's conceptio
of the eidos. I am an Aristotelian. I believe Paul is a reflexive Platonist.

That does not automatically make me right and Paul wrong. But if people are
going to argue for a Platonic coneption of knowledge in economics, they
ouhgt at least, to be prepared to be open abou it and defend it, or explain
to me why they really are not Platonists.

Oh well, perhaps I'll write an article this summer on this topic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Mearman [mailto:ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:40 PM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Harvard rejects alternative eco course


I wonder if Chip's question was rhetorical, or at
least pointed to the epitemological foundations of
truth.

Setting that aside and referring to the claim below,
*even if we can* posit that if the government is a
price setter and that this "fixes" an element of the
system, it is merely one element, and the remainder of
the system might remain open. The system might be more
closed than before, but one cannot claim that it is
closed to the degree necessary to undertake
unmitigated deductions. Even if we think we have
identified fundamental axioms (which is a strong claim
indeed) this does not guarantee a closed system and
thus does not justify unmitigated deduction.

Andrew

>
> The government's monetary system is 'imposed' on the
> real economy, particularly via taxation.  It is a
> public monopoly, for all practical purposes, and
> Govt
> is thereby 'price setter.'  This reality
> allows one to use a closed system of deductive
> logic and make 'truth' statements in this context.
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com