On November 20, Robin Neill wrote: >So, I am reading THE PROMISE OF PRAGMATISM. >What comes to mind is the following question. With the >advent of a new epistemology and psychology, following >the work of Pierce, James and Dewey [the Pragmatists], >T.B. Veblen called on economists to abandon the old >Associationist epistemology and psychology; that is, to >bring Economics into line with Pragmatism [in his phrase, >make it an evolutionary science]. Since 1950 (or >whenever you wish to set the date) Pragmatism has been >replaced by [succeeded by, improved upon by, has led into, >has degenerated into] Postmodern Deconstructionism. >The latter presents yet another [an alternative, an >improved upon, a contradictory] epistemology-psychology >with which to speculate about the problem of [the crisis of] >knowledge. Is anyone calling for an updating of >Economics on the basis of Postmodern >Deconstructionism? What is the significance of >Economics' continued reliance on `the old >Associationist epistemology-psychology'? Or, is there >some other question that should be asked with respect to >this matter? Is positive, quantitative economics >Pragmatic? In what sense? > [log in to unmask] I don't understand Robin's statement that "pragmatism has been replaced by postmodern deconstructionism." Who are some of the current Pragmatists? Offhand, I would say folks like Richard Rorty, Richard Bernstein and Cornell West. To characterize them and others like them as postmodern deconstructionists shows little understanding of their intellectual positions--admittedly different from turn of the century pragmatists. In economics, the work of McCloskey follows closely Rorty's criticism of philosophy, so, in a sense, there has been an updating of economics, although in the newer vein of pragmatism. In terms of an updating of economics via pomo decon, I would say that Resnick and Wolff have attempted something along those lines in their work on overdeterminism (ala Althusser). Jonathon Mote 1822 Chestnut #3F Philly, PA [log in to unmask]