> Mike williams
> > 1. Reality is complex, so 'parsimony' may conflict with realism.
Paul C.
> No conflict. Reality is complex but one should not build more complexity
> into ones theory than is necessary.
Necessary for what?
>
> The principle is that 'entities should not be multiplied without due
> cause',
Is this parsimony of ontological commitment identical the conceptual
parsimony you evoked to rule out the 'value is determined in the
intersection of production and exchange' position?
> What is the due cause for assuming that both price and value vary in
> response
> to demand?
The intuition that value cannot be quantitatively determined in production
alone, backed up by accounts such as Reuten and Williams (1989) value-form
account, whose claim to fame is that they identify more precisely that
which is necessary for the reproduction of the capitalist economy (and more
broadly the bourgeois epoch) as a system, and the insights about the
actuality of manifestations of that system thereby engendered.
>
> In a marshallian frame work with a rising supply curve one might be
> able to justify it. Is this what you are arguing?
No. Although I do not rule out the contribution of Marshallian analysis to
the understanding of the operation of the market mechanisms that manifest
value-form association.
>
> > 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.
> I tend to favour the australian materialist school of Smout, Price etc.
Could you elaborate, briefly?
>
> > 3. Your naturalism is not self-evident, but needs to argued for.
> >
> Yes, Lenin did this in Materialism and Empiro Criticism.
Without an indication of the key points in this that persuade you, this
looks like an appeal to authority. IMO, whilst a case could be made that
the 'progress' of economics has been largely negative since Marx, 120
years of science and social science, and of further philosophical
reflection upon them *may* just have led to new insights into
epistemological criteria and ontological commitments appropriate to an
understanding of society and economy.
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