Pat Gunning wrote:
>I do not understand your distinction between
>speculative and practical reason and have no
>desire to receive a lesson in philosophy unless it is a very simple one.
Two points: One, I would have thought that the
difference between speculative and practical
sciences was not that obscure and indeed, was
simple; the difference between a science like
pure mathematics, which proceeds from axioms
unrelated to any empirical data, and chemistry or
psychology, which are dependent on empirical
data, would seem to be intuitively obvious. The
question is, "to which of these two possibilities
does economic science belong?" Two, you want to
discuss epistemology, but do not want to discuss
philosophy. But how is that possible? Unless you
think that epistemology has some other source or
belongs to some other science, in which case you
ought to share that source or that science with
us. Or perhaps you think the source is Mises, in
which case the case is circular: Mises's
epistemology is based on Mises's epistemology.
But such circularity would merely confirm its status as an ideology.
You are fond of saying that people of
"misunderstand" Mises; one of the people is me
and the other is Hayek. Few, including myself,
would dispute the charge against me, but Hayek is
another matter; I don't think you can pass off
his testimony that easily. Further, while you
make the charge of misunderstanding, you offer no
substitute understanding, which leaves the
discussion at the level of mere ad hominem; I
don't think that's conducive to dialogue.
>Finally, I do not see much use in the definition
>that you attribute to Heilbroner. I find the
>terms in this definition -- societies, handle,
>and provisioning -- sufficiently vague to admit
>of all sorts of phenomena for which a value free
>investigation would be impossible.
Well, at least we can agree that these matters
cannot be investigated in a "value-free" manner.
But from whence comes this requirement? Moreover,
Heilbroner's definition would include yours as a
particular case, but yours can include nothing
but a particular form of capitalism. Is there any
reason for thinking that it is not merely an
attempt to define your opponents out of existence?
> In any case, Heilbroner's definition is also off the subject.
Oh?
>But perhaps this message will help you see things differently.
I'm afraid not. The mere assertion that you are
right and everybody else is wrong might in fact
be true, but it is hardly persuasive.
John C. Medaille
|