Thanks Nicky, and very nice to hear from you again! > So, does this mean I agree with Andy. Not necessarily since I don't think > that Marxian theory should be put above empirical testing. To say that it > should be is surely to put up another set of artificial boundaries about > *what constitutes Marxism as science*. I prefer to think that the question > is open to social (re)construction and debate. > To avoid misunderstanding, my view should not be characterised as 'above empirical testing'. Rather, in the first place, I would want to problematise the notion of 'empirical testing' itself. I think you will find that this phrase actually refers to a range of different processes, none of which are accurately comprehended by CR, the 'return to practice' view, the Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos tradition, or any other prevalent tradition. Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST