Samuel Bostaph wrote: > >>Principles of choice are different from the > >>thought processes involved in choosing or in other aspects of thinking. > > >Principles without thought processes. > > >What an interesting principle. Is it thoughtless? > > >As a little reflection [a thought process] will >reveal to you, to say that principles of >anything are different from the thought >processes involved in applying them is hardly >to say that the principles are without thought processes. That's not clear to me at all, even after reflection. If I posit any "principle of thought," am I not also positing a thought process? If I advance as a principle of thought, "men always make choices based on maximum utility to oneself," am I not at the same time saying "when men choose, they make a calculation (go through a thought process) of the relative utilities of their choices." In this case, there would appear to be no distinction. Perhaps you can give us a concrete example of what you mean. Principles of thought lie in domains other than economics. Economists, qua economists, simply have no training or expertise in this area; they must turn to other sciences for guidance on such subjects. To refuse to acknowledge the proper domain of the other sciences converts economics from a pure science to a pure ideology. John C. M?daille