No Rakesh, that wasn't what I was saying. A more technical statement of my frustration with your approach is that you appeal to a system which, if stated in the form of dynamic equations, would have more unknowns than equations. In such a system, anything argument is possible--even, for example, that capital is the only source of value and labour only maintains its value input. Steve At 22:43 19/10/00 -0700, you wrote: >Re 4154 > >>Rakesh, >> >>The key problem I have with your approach, and I *hope* that at least some >>people on OPE share this concern, is that your procedure makes it >>effectively impossible to put what you see as Marx's logic into a format in >>which it can be tested for internal consistency. Popper described this kind >>of behaviour as the hallmark of a pseudo-science. While the philosophy of >>science has moved on a long way from Popper, his litmus test between a >>science and a non-science--that the former makes statements which can be >>falsified, whereas the latter makes it impossible to either verify or >>disconfirm itself--is still accepted. >> >>In other words, in the name of saving Marx from what you see as unjustified >>criticism, your approach effectively makes it impossible to make any >>criticism at all. >> >>I for one do not wish to "save" Marx in this fashion. >> >>Steve > > >Steve, >You do not indicate what in my or the TSS's position renders >falsification impossible. You do not show why input prices=output >prices is a test for internal consistency. > >So before I respond, may I ask for a clarification. > >Let me go back to a philosophy 101 example despite the erudition >already displayed on this list > >1. All ravens are black >2. It is not the case that all ravens are black >3. There is (or exists) a non black raven > >So is this what you are saying???? > > >1. All price of production systems are determined by an underlying value system > or all value systems can be transformed into a price of production system >2. It is not the case that an equilibrium price of production system can be > derived from a value system or a value system can be transformed >into simple > reproduction at the same unit prices of production for the inputs as the > outputs >3. There exist price of production systems, viz. equilibrium ones, which cannot > be determined by value > >If this is what you are saying some quick questions: > >a. are you assuming that falsifiable hypotheses should take the form >of universal generalisations >b. are you saying that your critics here are defining "system" in >such an inherently temporal and sequential way that the >falsifications simply cannot count as such? >c. are you saying that Popper thought falsification could be achieved simply >by constructing ideal models as negativising existential statements >even if they had no empirical relevance? > >I truly couldn't make heads or tails of your post. > > >Yours, Rakesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST