Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu Oct 12 17:55:45 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Professor Lee writes that "heterodox economics involves a secular explanation
of economic activity." I thought that a secular explanation is a sine qua non
condition of ANY science. In this respect "religious physics" is also a
contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, the pseudoscientific "Intelligent
Design" explanations in biology - generously funded and supported by political
pressure - can serve as a cautionary tale to other scientific disciplines.
The point made by him is, of course, taken, namely that not everything that is
not "orthodox economics" can be called "heterodox economics". Perhaps the
term is not appropriate. I always preferred the term "political economy", but
this is sadly appropriated.
Professor Gafney, on the other hand, makes a very important point, i.e., that
the values of the religious right had permeated economics and contaminated it
with a reactionary ethos. How does the list feel about this?
Nicholas Theocarakis
|
|
|