"E. Roy Weintraub" wrote:  
  
> "Reality" or ""truth, as in  
> "obviously true or self-evident (or not  
> self-evident) [to whom?] axioms", play no role  
> whatsoever.  
  
Then the above proposition plays no role and is thus  
unsound.  Applying its own content to itself, the  
proposition is not real, not true, and not  
self-evident.  It is self-extinguishing.  
  
> Ex cathedra pontifications  
  
This kind of labelling should also play no role.  
Nobody is claiming to speak ex cathedra.    
  
A proposition should be analyzed on its own merits and  
the analyst should conclude that either the  
proposition is sound or it is not.  
   
In this kind of forum, merely invoking literature is  
not very helpful.  It is indeed helpful to point to  
literature that one may delve into to learn or refresh  
one's knowlege, but it is not a good substitute for  
argumentation in this forum for the discussion here  
and now.  Merely invoking literature is a conversation  
stopper.  If one would like a thread to stop, just say  
so.  
  
If some literature is useful, then the one acquainted  
with it would better serve the discussion by  
distilling it and presenting the basic findings that  
are relevant to the argument.  Indeed, that may spur  
curiosity that would lead others to investigate  
further.  
All of us have much more that we wish to read than we  
possibly have time for.  Due to such opportunity  
costs, one useful aspect of a forum such as this is to  
serve as a "scholar's digest" of various topics.  
  
For example, the text I provided from John Locke boils  
down his ethical-political thought into the core  
concept relevant to economic equity.  
  
What has happened here is that the discussion has  
descended to another level, beyond equity into  
epistemology and methodology.  Hence, I am told that  
it is impossible to have an objective discussion about  
equity, and the history of thought on equity, because  
there is no reality or truth.  
  
It seems to me that there is no way to discuss ethics  
or economics, and to evaluate past thought, other than  
to accept that common observations and ordinary logic  
are suffient for scientific purposes.  If this is  
naive, then in my judgment, science requires that we  
be sophisticatedly naive about reality.  
  
Fred Foldvary