Re: Economic Science [Was: Re: The Widow's Cruse

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>]

***|
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."
|***

Not when you interpret what he means by this in light
of his 1938 letter.  By "branch of logic" he clearly
states that what he means by this is the "progressive
improvement in the choice of models" tested against
phenomena observed in the real world.  See the full
text of Keynes's letter at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/keynes-1938.txt

***|
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...
|***

I thought Hume departed from classical concepts of
knowledge.  Moreover, this does not even appear to be
Humean who I always thought was a radical empiricist.
I believe I remember that he divided knowledge into
two categories--what we would call *a priori* and *a
posteriori*.  Your 1 and 2 above would fall into the
*a priori* category, wouldn't it?  Or am I mistaken?
Isn't that what is meant by "axiomatic" being derived
through the rules of formal logic from facts assumed
to be true *a priori*?  I believe Hume questioned the
necessary validity of *a priori* knowledge (or
anything derived from it) because we have no way of
knowing the validity of the impressions in the minds
of our remote ancestors who imparted them to us
through the generations.  *A posteriori* knowledge is
therefore more reliable than knowledge gained *a
priori*.  We may conclude from our observations that
the sun has risen today.  We cannot justifiably
conclude from that the certainty it will rise
tomorrow because that is information not yet observed
by us.  Knowledge *a priori* is knowledge that was
never observed by us.

***|
For some time now (close to thirty years!), I have
maintained an epistemological point of view with
respect to what Lionel Robbins termed 'the nature and
significance of economic science' which, first, Paul
A. Samuelson plus a handful of orthodox mainstream
economists and, next, PKTers have judged to be off
the wall - that is, if thoughtless knee-jerk reaction
to unfamiliar viewpoints may be said to constitute
'judgment'.
|***

I object to your characterization of critical
comments from myself and others as being "thoughtless
knee-jerk reaction to unfamiliar viewpoints."
Firstly, the viewpoints you have expressed are
definitely not "unfamiliar" but retreads of banal
stuff long ago discredited, like Marx's M->C->M'
where M' minus M is taken to be the definition of
profit.  It was already discredited even before Marx
by those familiar with the rules of double entry
accounting.  Those rules were integral to the
development of capitalism.  Profit is the operational
increment to capital (or "net worth") not money.
It is enabled by mechanisms of credit that are human
constructs, which do not automatically flow from
natural forces (the "hidden hand") through the
market.

But we've gone through this all before.  Your
argument appears to be caught in a time warp from the
1970s.  No matter what is said to you in terms of
informed response, it never changes.  You never
counter the informed response with reasoned reply,
but continue to chatter the same words and phrases in
your vocabulary like a parrot.




____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005