From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 00:26:14 EST
--- Andrew Brown <Andrew@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote: > Hi Ajit, > > You wrote: > > > Hume's > > challenge on causation has never been answered. > > I think materialist dialectics does just that. And I > base my > interpretaion of value theory on just this answer. I > am very taken > with your interpretaion of Sraffa but if you really > believe Hume has > never been answered then I don't see how you can > offer a useful > economic theory. > > Best wishes, > > Andy _____________________ Hi, Andy! Because economic theory does not have to be an empiricist philosophy of knowledge. Hume himself did not follow his empiricist philosophy in his other works because his philosophy ultimately leads to nihilism. But that does not mean that the philosophical problem he raised for empiricist knowledge, particularly for the implied relation of cause and effect, is all bunk. It shows us the limitation of what we claim to know. Now, we all know that all sciences are predictive, i.e. built on the relation of cause and effect. But science is not in a business of proving anything--it is neither philosophy nor mathematics. In some Kantian sense science simply takes the relation of cause and effect as a priori or its fundamental belief or axiom. On this basis it only tentatively suggests certain causal explanations for various phenomena. But these theories must always remain tentative and can never prove its correctness beyond doubt. The main role of science is to act as a medicine that sooths our mind by giving some sort of order to desperate phenomena--it keeps us from going crazy! That's an admirable job and economics can be part of it. But it is also good to know the limitations of what we claim to know. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 00:00:00 EST