SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Mathew Forstater)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:19 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Thanks for the reference, Daniele.  I actually have heard of the author,  
possibly the book, but have not checked it out.  I may have seen the  
reference in one of John Allen Paulos' books, all of which I highly  
recommend, such as _Innumeracy_, _I Think Therefore I Laugh_,  
_Mathematics and Humor_, etc. These are very good and include good  
ideas for classroom use.  I've been looking at a lot of the secondary  
literature on Holmes, including pastiches, parodies, etc., but also some  
wild non-fiction stuff on holmes and method.  There are actually a lot  
of courses out there on Holmes and science.  One of the things I am  
pursuing is the idea that Holmes's method is the method of what the  
ancient greek geometers called "analysis" and "synthesis", which I  
define in the article "Working Backwards" cited in my earlier post.  I  
cannot find anyone else who has made the argument (maybe nobody  
cares!), although lots have made the argument that Homes's method is  
Peircian "abduction" or "retroduction".  This is important in my view  
not only because it is absolutely exactly spot on as I can prove with  
strong evidence, but also because it leads to the relation between  
"abduction" and "retroduction" on the one hand and the method of  
analysis of the ancient greek geometers on the other, which nobody as  
far as I can tell has explored (please help me find the work that has  
explored these connections if it exists!).  There are some more  
important implications that I can't get into here.  By the way, all this  
derives from clues provided in footnotes and never elaborated in the  
work of Adolph Lowe, relating to his methodology of public policy  
and economic theory, that he called "instrumental analysis."  He tried to  
explain what he meant by instrumentalism by citing Peirce's abduction,  
Polya's "heuristics", and Michael Polanyi's work.   
 
Anyone insterested let me know and I can send some quotes and  
several page drafts outlining the argument as I have so far developed it.   
 
Mat Forstater 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2