Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:12 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
================= HES POSTING ======================
[Editor's Note: The following comments are in response to Greg Ransom's
reply to Pat Gunning posted yesterday, 2 October, in this same
conversation thread.]
I remember a conversation between two profs when I first enrolled in a masters'
of economics program about 25 years ago. They had what they regarded as a highly
abstract and complete discussion of some economic issue without ever stating an idea.
The first would mention one economist's name; the second would counter with the name of
a different economist. And then the first would counter with still a different name. And
so it went. My fellow students regarded this as evidence of their brilliance. To be able
to summarize complex ideas in a single name is a great skill. That two people can do
this must greatly facilitate communication, they thought. But I was led to wonder: Are
they really communicating in a way that they may learn something? Or are they merely
producing a ritualistic chant.
More to the point. Your note gives the impression that Mises was preempted --
that his ideas were not especially different from those of the early phenomenologists
and Austrian economists. I would feel better about following your reading suggestions if
I was confident that you understood the deeper implications of accepting the point that
the phenomena of praxeology and economics are fundamentally different from those of the
natural sciences and that, as a result, they require fundamentally different methods of
study. Acceptance of this point would apparently lead you to appreciate, though perhaps
not accept, the proposition that formalism is totally alien to the method of study that
Mises regarded as appropriate for praxeology and economics. (Unfortunately, however,
Mises did not give us a recipe to show us how to apply the method of praxeology and
economics. This is implicit in his work.)
I am using the term "formalism" in the way that the HESers seem to have been
using it in recent discussions in this forum. You may have something different mind,
such as the application of logical reasoning. If so, it might be worth exploring that
difference.
Greg, more specific comments on your remarks are contained in a direct Email.
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|