Pat Gunning wrote: >I do not understand your distinction between >speculative and practical reason and have no >desire to receive a lesson in philosophy unless it is a very simple one. Two points: One, I would have thought that the difference between speculative and practical sciences was not that obscure and indeed, was simple; the difference between a science like pure mathematics, which proceeds from axioms unrelated to any empirical data, and chemistry or psychology, which are dependent on empirical data, would seem to be intuitively obvious. The question is, "to which of these two possibilities does economic science belong?" Two, you want to discuss epistemology, but do not want to discuss philosophy. But how is that possible? Unless you think that epistemology has some other source or belongs to some other science, in which case you ought to share that source or that science with us. Or perhaps you think the source is Mises, in which case the case is circular: Mises's epistemology is based on Mises's epistemology. But such circularity would merely confirm its status as an ideology. You are fond of saying that people of "misunderstand" Mises; one of the people is me and the other is Hayek. Few, including myself, would dispute the charge against me, but Hayek is another matter; I don't think you can pass off his testimony that easily. Further, while you make the charge of misunderstanding, you offer no substitute understanding, which leaves the discussion at the level of mere ad hominem; I don't think that's conducive to dialogue. >Finally, I do not see much use in the definition >that you attribute to Heilbroner. I find the >terms in this definition -- societies, handle, >and provisioning -- sufficiently vague to admit >of all sorts of phenomena for which a value free >investigation would be impossible. Well, at least we can agree that these matters cannot be investigated in a "value-free" manner. But from whence comes this requirement? Moreover, Heilbroner's definition would include yours as a particular case, but yours can include nothing but a particular form of capitalism. Is there any reason for thinking that it is not merely an attempt to define your opponents out of existence? > In any case, Heilbroner's definition is also off the subject. Oh? >But perhaps this message will help you see things differently. I'm afraid not. The mere assertion that you are right and everybody else is wrong might in fact be true, but it is hardly persuasive. John C. Medaille