=================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
What is common sense?  Flavio distinguishes between two different  
concepts: 1) common sense methodology, and 2) common sense reality.  He  
urges that both need to be instituted within the discipline in order to  
make economics a more reliable discipline. 
 
While I am in wholehearted agreement with Flavio about common sense  
methodological standards, his call for establishing common sense reality  
as a foundational element for economics is misguided.  In fact, the main  
criticism I have of "common sense reality" is the same one that Patrick  
Baert has applied to the use of critical realism in economics (a  
perspective which Flavio obviously draws on, but does not explicitly  
aknowledge).  Essentially, Flavio wants to discard the positivist notion  
of reality that pervades economics and erect another pseudo-positivist  
alternative in its place.  Postivism and "common sense" both share a  
concept of knowledge acqusition as reflecting or picturing a  
"world-out-there."  As such, it does not acknowledge the role of dialogue  
and social mediation in the construction of economic theories.   
 
For example, in talking about the differences between a number of  
heterodox perspectives, Flavio says that "the common ground in  
these alternative approaches is their underlying concept of reality."   
However, the reason there are differences betweeen these schools is  
because of their different conceptions of reality.  What is common among  
these schools is how they construct reality and, in turn, knowledge,  
that is, through narrative and rhetoric.  The problem is not that their  
are differences in our perspectives, but that we create these realities  
as discursive cudgels with which to beat the hell out of one another  
(best illustrated in my most-hated phrase "history shows..."). 
 
The advice to adhere to common sense in our methodology is wise and much  
needed.  But the admonition to to adhere to a common sense "reality" is  
nothing more than a theoretical sleight of hand, exchanging one  
positivism for another. 
 
Jonathon Mote  
University of Pennsylvania 
 
REFERENCE 
 
Baert, Patrick, 1996, "Realist Philosophy of the social sciences and  
economics: a critique," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 20, pgs.  
513-522. 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]