Pat Gunning wrote:  
>Regarding John M.'s recent post. Is it   
>speculative (practical) reasoning or speculative   
>(practical) science? I don't follow your use of   
>terms. In any case, in my view, Mises's   
>epistemology does not fit into any of the categories you mention.  
  
On that we agree. But can one just invent new   
categories of reason? You want epistemology   
without philosophy OR observation. So what is the   
possible source, or is it all just an imaginary construct?  
  
  
>You are wrong to say that I offer no substitute   
>understanding. I have indeed made the offer. But   
>I demand, before I spend time on this, that you   
>accept at least provisionally Mises definition   
>of economics. It is you, not I, who is failing to cooperate in this endeavor.  
  
In other words, you only discuss these matters   
with those who already agree with you?  
  
>Mises claimed that his definition is the one   
>that has been traditionally used in this field.  
  
"One of" the definitions, or "the only   
definition"? I don't think the later can be   
validated historically. But the changing   
definitions of economics would make an   
interesting discussion for an economics history   
list, particularly the relationship of economics to the other sciences.  
  
>  So I don't see the problem on an HES list with   
> this definition. What do you have against the   
> definition of economics as the study of economic interaction?  
  
Well, its circular for starters. You can't   
include the term in its definition. Definition is   
more than tautology; "A rose is a rose is a rose" is not a definition.  
  
  
John C. Medaille