---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:34:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [OPE-L:6345] Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's inter Re Jerry's 6345: >> However, I do remember Gil offering us his "Copernican" proposals > in a >no so distant past. > >I don't remember that. Gil: did you ever claim to be a Copernican or >suggest that your perspectives are Copernican? Heavens, no. Here's the relevant passage from my post 4243: >Would you say that embracing this hypothetical theory is tantamount to >rejecting "Marx's theory of the capitalist mode of production"? If so, why? > If the theory affirms Marx's central claim that capitalist profit is based >on systematic exploitation of the working class (including the dynamic >aspects of Marx's argument, let's say) without needing to introduce an >additional theoretical entity--commodity labor values--and analyze its >possible connection to another entity--commodity prices---couldn't this be >viewed as an advance in, rather than a rejection of, Marx's theoretical >project, in something like the same way that Copernican cosmology >represented an advance over its predecessor, in part because it dispensed >with the cumbersome apparatus of Ptolemaic epicycles? I was simply characterizing a possible outcome to a thought experiment based on a reference to a well-recognized episonde in the history of science, without at all suggesting that any such "Copernican" revolution has been achieved in the present context. Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST