----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:04
AM
Subject: Economic Science [Was: Re: The
Widow's Cruse
Barkley:
Schumpeter's silence on the subject matter in
History of Economic Analysis accords with Samuelson's comments:
"Curiously enough, [Schumpeter]
rarely mentioned his own theories. The nature of entrepreneurship and
profits was discussed; but only once did I hear him discuss the reasons why
the interest rate would be zero in a stationary state, and then only in an
advanced seminar and under heavy pressure from [students]."
Why this 'curious' silence?
"I have never tried to bring
about a Schumpeter school," he advised his Bonn students in 1930.
"There is none and it ought not to exist.... ECONOMICS IS
NOT PHILOSOPHY BUT A SCIENCE. Hence there should be no
'schools' in our field. [As in "mainstream", "monetarist", PKT, etc. -
insert GT].... Many people feel irritated by this attitude. For in
Germany alone there are half a dozen economists who regard themselves as
heads of such 'schools,' as fighters for absolute light against absolute
darkness. BUT THERE IS NO USE COMBATING THAT SORT OF THING. ONE
SHOULD NOT FIGHT WHAT LIFE IS GOING TO ELIMINATE ANYWAY." [As in
my earlier statement that Schumpeter "chose not to waste his time" in
attempts to convert true believers to his point of view - insert
GT].
In the context, the concept of
Economics as SCIENCE is not that used by Sweden's Central
Bank in rewarding 'mainstream', 'monetarist', and - one
day? - PKTers for contributions thereto.
Instead, the concept of
Economics as Science mirrors the classical (Humean) concept of
"knowledge" - in a working paper from the 1980s, I summarized it as
follows:
1. All knowledge is
axiomatic.
2. Hence,
knowledge relates to a state of mind.
3. A state of mind is
either clear or confused, coherent or incoherent, logical or
illogical.
4. A claim to knowledge is
a claim to a clear, coherent, and logical state of mind.
5. Hence, a claim to
knowledge is distinct from a claim to opinion, whose
validity is beyond any conceivable refutation on grounds of clarity,
coherence, and logic.
6. A claim to knowledge
derives from the perception that one's mind is clear, coherent, and logical
in holding such claim to be beyond dispute by any other mind equally clear,
coherent, and logical.
7. Hence, a claim to
knowledge can only be refuted by minds satisfying the requirements of
clarity, coherence, and logic.
8. A claim to
axiomatic knowledge is a claim to a state of mind marked by
clarity, coherence, and logic in its grasp of propositions beyond relative
time and space.
9. The art
of economics addresses policy issues within relative time and space in light
of the axiomatic propositions of economic science
itself.
The above concept of knowledge
accords perfectly with the definition offered in 1922 by Keynes [my working
paper continued]:
"The Theory of Economics does not
furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to a
policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the
mind, a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct
conclusions."
Gunnar