Paul writes:
> The possibility of demand conditions altering value is ruled out on
grounds
> of theoretical parsimony. If one allows that prices can vary above and
> below
> their values in response to demand, it is both indeterminate and
> unnecessarily
> complicated to say that the value also changes.
>
> We are under no obligation to reconcile our theoretical position with
every
> statement that Marx made if our concern is to construct a consistent and
> realistic theory of value.
But:
1. Reality is complex, so 'parsimony' may conflict with realism.
2. Parsimony is a criterion of theory choice only within the philosophy of
(natural) science. What is more, this philosophy of science does not appear
to be central to current (post Quine) concerns of philosophy of science,
that rather seem to be oriented around the debate between 'constructive
empiricism' (van Fraassen) and varieties of scientific realism.
3. Your naturalism is not self-evident, but needs to argued for.
So, whilst your position is entirely consistent with the methodological
settlement that emerges clearly from your work, it sheds almost no light on
the debate about the social determination of values. Methodological karate
chops rarely do.
Your megalomaniac continental system builder,
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Dr Michael Williams
"Books are Weapons"
Department of Economics Home:
School of Social Sciences 26 Glenwood Avenue
De Montfort University Southampton
Hammerwood Gate SO16 3QA
Kents Hill
Milton Keynes
MK7 6HP
tel:+1908 834876 tel/fax: +1703 768641
fax:+1908 834979
email: mwilliam@torres.mk.dmu.ac.uk mwilliam@compuserve.com
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam