On 11/15/2013 1:40 PM, Bylund, Per L. wrote:
> It seems to suggest that logic is irrelevant (and hence
> that axioms cannot be true or that it doesn't matter what
> is derived logically from a true statement) or,
> alternatively, that the fact that something is observed
> (empirically so, such as seen, heard, measured and
> whatnot) makes it as well as its use free from
> interpretation, subjectivity, or value assessments.


Why would it "suggest" any of that, since nobody takes such
a stance?  It is simply an anecdotal observation: when
economists resort to the term "obvious", it is often a
signal that they have stopped thinking.  But I insist,
dismissing empirical evidence because it fails to accord
with one's axioms is not science, deductive or otherwise.
Rhetoric invoking "deductive science" has too often played
handmaid to immunizing strategies.

In this particular case, here was the usage of "obvious"
that I objected to: "we have had a radical experiment in
economic policy across the world and if it is not obvious
beyond argument that a Keynesian stimulus will not work then
I don't know what conceivable evidence there could ever be
that would convince anyone just how poorly structured the
underlying Keynesian theory is."

I take this as a case in point.  I cannot imagine making
that statement while be aware of the extensive empirical
work on this question.  That of course may be a failing of
my imagination.  If Steve cares to surprise me and discuss
the published studies that underlay his assessment, I'd be
happy to be proved wrong.  The last time I tried to open
that discussion, however, we did not get very far:
https://listserv.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212C&L=SHOE&P=R9115&D=0&H=0&I=-3&O=A&T=0

Cheers,
Alan Isaac