Samuel Bostaph wrote:

> >>Principles of choice are different from the
> >>thought processes involved in choosing or in other aspects of thinking.
>
> >Principles without thought processes.
>
> >What an interesting principle. Is it thoughtless?
>
>
>As a little reflection [a thought process] will 
>reveal to you, to say  that principles of 
>anything are different from the thought 
>processes  involved in applying them is hardly 
>to say that the principles are  without thought processes.


That's not clear to me at all, even after 
reflection. If I posit any "principle of 
thought," am I not also positing a thought 
process? If I advance as a principle of thought, 
"men always make choices based on maximum utility 
to oneself," am I not at the same time saying 
"when men choose, they make a calculation (go 
through a thought process) of the relative 
utilities of their choices." In this case, there 
would appear to be no distinction. Perhaps you 
can give us a concrete example of what you mean.

Principles of thought lie in domains other than 
economics. Economists, qua economists, simply 
have no training or expertise in this area; they 
must turn to other sciences for guidance on such 
subjects. To refuse to acknowledge the proper 
domain of the other sciences converts economics 
from a pure science to a pure ideology.


John C. M?daille