One real world question that has just struck me is that money market rates in Japan are currently less than 1%. Does anyone know if the rate of profit in Japan is of this same low order? -----Original Message----- From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Steve Keen Sent: 19 October 2000 23:04 To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu Subject: [OPE-L:4170] Re: Re: Re: (Fwd) Re: Who agrees with Popper? [re OPE-L:4154] Hey, hold on! I did *not* say that *falsifiability* is the only criteria for judging a theory scientific. I did say that it is a criterion, which I would argue has been attenuated by subsequent progress in the philosophy of science, but not abrogated. I agree with Mirowski that you can't use Lakatos' framework to judge between theories. But I think you can use it to typify the kind of change going on within a given school of thought. Now of course you won't get agreement from practitioners of different schools--please don't think I believe that. In my original comment which began this thread, I was effectively expressing my frustration with the way in which some TSS advocates appear to approach criticism--which from my perspective, is to make their position "uncriticisable". From a Lakatos point of view, I see that a degenerative, not progressive behaviour. But I have no doubt that TSSers won't agree with me, and that I can't appeal to the philosophy of science to persuade them (nor they me). But as a parting aside, how about some "progressive" discussion on this list folks? When was there last a discussion here on something which is actually happening in the real world--such as, for example, the chaos on america's financial markets? Isn't that the sort of thing a progressive science should be analysing--rather than forever trying to solve--or dismiss--the transformation problem? Marx once commented in effect that the purpose of studying philosophy was to understand and transform the world; when was the last time we even discussed it? Steve At 21:14 19/10/00 +0800, you wrote: >Steve writes [OPE-L: 4159] > >>I haven't kept up with the philosophy of science since Lakatos--though I >>have read all the references you note below. I dispute that it is Popper's >>litmus test which has been rejected. What has been rejected are his >>concepts of how scientists do and should behave. I would find it strange >>for any philospher of science to define as a science a set of propositions >>which has been designed to be unfalsifiable--though of course adjusting >>ancillary assumptions is a normal part of the development of a SRP. > >Pulling a book off my shelf.... it seems Popper thought that objectivity in >the social sciences depends on the 'critical method' implied by >falsification, since 'only in the rarest cases can the social scientist >free himself from the value system of his own social class and so achieve >even a limited degree of "value freedom" and "objectivity" (Logic of the >Social Sciences, in Adorno 1976 edn. *The Positivist Dispute in German >Sociology*). > >"Truth" wins out through a process of criticism?! Does anyone disagree with >Popper? > >Like Andy, I'd like to see some justification for a claim that >falsifiablity is the *only* criterion for judging a theory 'scientific'. >Steve's present answer doesn't stand up to the Duhem-Quine thesis that any >single hypothesis is immune to falsification because of its theoretical >auxiliary hypotheses? Adjusting assumptions doesn't help you to solve the >problem! Another basic question is the one of whether the objective tests >you devise as your litmus test can be disentangled from the theoretical >biases of the theory from which they are derived? > >As for the 'critical' element in the social sciences, I recall from >undergrad Philosophy of Social Sciences that Habermas had something >interesting to say about it. Something to do with how far people in their >communications have the competence to raise questions. Might it not be, >then, that positive methodologies imply a closure of debate (rather than an >invitation to criticism). After all, restricting the definition of what >counts as science effectively ensures that alternative voices struggle to >be heard (don't we know it!). > >In one of his papers Mirowski made a similar point about the futility of >applying a Lakatosian framework to an evaluation of the 'truths' expounded >by different schools in economics. For the simple reason that there is a >*lack* of agreement between these schools as to what counts as science and >therefore no commonly held criterion of judgement, and no commonly held >methodological magic wand for revealing what is to count as 'truth' in the >first place. What you take as unproblematic, Steve, is very problematic >indeed. > >Popper, of course, rejects the view that theories are fundamentally >incomensurable, remarking caustically on the 'myth of the framework'. He >supports his remark only by ignoring any debate about the nature of >'science' and the nature of 'truth' in his discussions of the nature of the >'critical stance' - either as critical rationalism or as a critical theory >of society. He certainly ignores the political/ideological foundations of >his own view. As Adorno points out - in the same book that contains >Popper's 'Logic' - 'there is more than one ghost in the machine' (p.xv). > >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. > >comradely >Nicky > > 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 - 00:00:11 EST