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