"E. Roy Weintraub" wrote:
> "Reality" or ""truth, as in
> "obviously true or self-evident (or not
> self-evident) [to whom?] axioms", play no role
> whatsoever.
Then the above proposition plays no role and is thus
unsound. Applying its own content to itself, the
proposition is not real, not true, and not
self-evident. It is self-extinguishing.
> Ex cathedra pontifications
This kind of labelling should also play no role.
Nobody is claiming to speak ex cathedra.
A proposition should be analyzed on its own merits and
the analyst should conclude that either the
proposition is sound or it is not.
In this kind of forum, merely invoking literature is
not very helpful. It is indeed helpful to point to
literature that one may delve into to learn or refresh
one's knowlege, but it is not a good substitute for
argumentation in this forum for the discussion here
and now. Merely invoking literature is a conversation
stopper. If one would like a thread to stop, just say
so.
If some literature is useful, then the one acquainted
with it would better serve the discussion by
distilling it and presenting the basic findings that
are relevant to the argument. Indeed, that may spur
curiosity that would lead others to investigate
further.
All of us have much more that we wish to read than we
possibly have time for. Due to such opportunity
costs, one useful aspect of a forum such as this is to
serve as a "scholar's digest" of various topics.
For example, the text I provided from John Locke boils
down his ethical-political thought into the core
concept relevant to economic equity.
What has happened here is that the discussion has
descended to another level, beyond equity into
epistemology and methodology. Hence, I am told that
it is impossible to have an objective discussion about
equity, and the history of thought on equity, because
there is no reality or truth.
It seems to me that there is no way to discuss ethics
or economics, and to evaluate past thought, other than
to accept that common observations and ordinary logic
are suffient for scientific purposes. If this is
naive, then in my judgment, science requires that we
be sophisticatedly naive about reality.
Fred Foldvary
|