SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:13:22 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Steve, I wonder whether you are interested in the concept or the 
words. The /concept/ of a distinction is broad enough to apply to all 
those intellectuals who conceive of a difference between predicting 
distinctly human actions and predicting the events of nature and 
non-human actions. I first thought about Mangoldt and other 
pre-Knightian efforts to define the entrepreneur. But then I expanded 
my thinking to include those who conceived of economics as a distinct 
"science."

The verbal distinction leaves something to be desired and even Knight 
had some difficulty maintaining it. The problem is that the word 
"uncertainty" in everyday speech implies an object. One thinks: 
"uncertainty about what?" Risk has no such implication.

Would you like to clarify?

Pat Gunning

ATOM RSS1 RSS2