Harry Pollard wrote:
Tom,
I'm doing some catching up of past posts I found interesting.
You are right. That's why we must build our edifices on true assumptions.
Harry
Thomas wrote:
Edifices built on false assumptions often lead to wrong conclusions which
usually negate any
Tom,
I'm doing some catching up of past posts I found interesting.
You are right. That's why we must build our edifices on true assumptions.
Harry
Thomas wrote:
Edifices built on false assumptions often lead to wrong conclusions which
usually negate any possiblity of predictability.
Hi Keith:
Just catching up on some old postings of yours and trying to make some
comments. Your phrase, how economics can be used as a science. and the
following phrase predictions made with a high degree of confidence:, are
an assumption. Economics has not been able to develop a replicatible
Mike,
At no time have I said what a person's desires are. I don't know - though
I did say that I thought that a primary desire would be survival. Seems
reasonable doesn't it? Without survival, there are no more
desires.
I think some people are more skilled than others at deducing from his
actions
At 10:14 PM -0500 2002/02/03, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
I [think I...] can see the point of this. (Dickensin poem)
Brad,
We both seem to have taken the edge (nasty?) off our responses. A
good sign. I try not to play chess and old habits die hard.
'Seeing the point' of Dickinson's poem is
Title: Re: FWk: Re: Double-stranded
Economics
Hi Ray,
I can't tell you how
much I appreciate your very thoughtful response
to my very brief attempt to hint at a few of Wittgentein's
insights into language.He truly believed that ethics and aesthetics
are one in the same.An attempt to create
Brian,
Yes, it is fun.
You said:
'I've got to prepare for 6 hours of classes tomorrow but I can use a lot
of this exchange because we are exploring 'interpretation' of text
in The Incredible Lightness of Being.'
And I have to make a postscript file of the first Cycle of my high school
economics
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:36
PM
Subject: RE: FWk: Re: Double-stranded
Economics
Arthur,Jolly good, Arthur!They are
axioms - self evident truths. That's why no-one can find an
exception.You don't have to prove a self-evident truth. After all -
it's self
Ray
answered my:
For
that matter where is this dog-eat-dog fantasy world.
Enron.
Ray
You've pinned it down!
Harry
**
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
***
At 02:38 AM 2/3/2002 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
Harry quoted me:
me It is, I think, even worse to start with ad hoc generalizations of
the
me emergent properties of the aggregate and then employ them as
me hypotheses from which, with the application of scientific
reasoning,
me we hope to deduce a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we need to understand may only be expressible
in a language that we do not know
[snip]
I am rather more optimistic on the potential of
language, although if you mean by a language that
we do not know, the results of childrearing and
schooling in terms of
Brian McAndrews wrote:
Brad,
Have you read Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein?
I have not. (So many books, so little time)
What does he say about LW's mental breakdown before WWI
and how LW related to students when he was a school teacher?
I did read a fascinating book about LW's
Hi Harry,
I'll only answer one point. Most of what you wrote in your last message at
15:10 01/02/02 -0800, I wouldn't quarrel mightily with but I have a comment
on one point where you wrote:
(HP)
Don't equate humanity with starlings and fish. They are impelled by
instinct -- the perfect
At 09:42 AM 2/3/2002 -0500, Brad wrote:
I'll leave whitman aside, since I
am poetry blind
Thanks for this honesty Brad. It saves both of us a lot of time because;
as the Perloff article I sent explores, I see Wittgenstein as a poetic
philosopher.. I am an amateur self taught student of
At 03:24 PM 2/3/2002 +, Keith wrote:
We may not
have the sort of detailed instincts that, say, a spider has when spinning a
web, but I think most scientists in various human disciplines would agree
that genetic propensities feature strongly.
Keith,
I find no solace what so ever in the
Brian,
I didn't say there was an order in the universe.
I suggested that scientists are obliged to assume there is.
Also, that they must assume that they can find it.
What else is there?
And what if it is a musical order? What a delightful thought.
I bet Ray would like that.
But what if it is
Brian,
A spider web has no awe.
A flower has no intrinsic beauty.
A redwood is just a tree.
Just as a humming bird is just a bird.
The awe, the beauty, the hushed tones deep in the redwood forest, the
delight watching a feeding humming bird, belong to us.
We do have a tendency to graft our
Keith,
As I said, Ashley Montagu - a probable super-genius in a bunch of
sociological fields - says flatly that we have no instincts. I had
already been teaching this for about 30 years when I came across his
statement, so I was glad we agreed!
I defined instinct as the perfect biologic response,
Sounds like for once I agree with Harry. The stars
are just Stofflumpen -- or
maybe just Lumpf... (if I have my German right...).
I recently read that the thing Hegel said that people
found most offensive was that the stars are only a
gleaming leprosy on the sky.
The thing that is uplifting
Hi Brian et al,
At 09:32 AM 2/3/2002 Sunday , you wrote:
Brian,
I didn't say there was an order in the universe.
I suggested that scientists are obliged to assume there is.
Also, that they must assume that they can find it.
What else is there?
And what if it is a musical order?
At 09:32 AM 2/3/2002 -0800, Harry wrote:
But what if it is cacophony
Harry,
Isn't this fun? You well know one person's cacophony is another person's
Mozart. It is a matter of taste. Wittgenstein spends a lot of time
dissolving this confusion. Think of how silly it would be to argue over
At 11:55 AM 2/3/2002 -0500,Brad wrote:
Do philosophical problems of dying, suffering, anomie,
making choices, etc. dissolve? Or do they get called
something else and live on under some less disturbing rubric?
I missed the Emily Dickinsoon poem -- can you
resend and I'll see what I make of it?
Hello Brad, Brian, I am enjoying
your conversation immensely as I always do. I have great respect for
your minds. That being said I would like to contribute a little
point or to.
Wittgenstein believed that ethics and
aesthetics can not be spoken or written about; they must be
shown.
I
nal Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry
PollardSent: February 1, 2002 3:23 PMTo: Michael
Gurstein; Keith HudsonCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Economics as a science (was Re:
Double-stranded Economics)Mike,I
said origi
Mike Spencer wrote:
Mike G wrote:
Formal Philosophy ( of the Linguistic Analysis school) made mince meat
of the Germans (Hegel, Schopenhouer, etc.etc.) by at the base,
pointing out that the attempt to evoke syllogistic or mathematical
logic using highly contextualized language, just
Brian,
I've been discussing the two Assumptions that precede all human sciences
- but particularly the Science of Political Economy.
There are two assumptions that precede all Science.
That there is an order in the universe.
and
That the mind of man can find that order.
Why two? - Well as
Sent: February 1, 2002 3:23 PM
To: Michael Gurstein; Keith Hudson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded
Economics)
Mike,
I said originally:
Man's desires are unlimited.
Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least
exertion
Arthur,
Anything can be as complicated as you want to make it.
However, surely the basic job of the scientist is to make things
simple.
Economics, in its drift away from science that began perhaps at the
beginning of the 20th century, has become so complicated that it is the
butt of jokes.
After
Mike,
Your analysis is wrong.
Though everything you say can be applied to the Neo-Classical stuff. They
are the people who decided about 100 years ago to make economics
mathematical, and therefore a science.
The problem with people sciences is you can't put people in test tubes,
so you have to
When I heard the learned astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure
them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause
in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I
Brad,
Have you read Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein? Stephen Toulmin gave it
rave reviews. He was a student of Wittgenstein and I think I recall you
mentioning his 'Cosmopolis' on this list. I have no idea where you came up
with the Asperger's syndrome stuff.
Scientists do play their own
What we need to understand may only be expressible
in a language that we do not know
(Anthony Judge)
-Original Message-From: Brian McAndrews
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002
7:41 PMTo: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.Cc:
Brian,
We must clear up the meaning and use of Assumptions. (I'm making then
official with a capital - but they are rarely expressed, I would think,
by scientists. This because they have already accepted them - because
they must.
Let's assume the opposite. There is chaos in the
universe.
Then all
- Original Message -
From:
Harry Pollard
To: pete ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:00
PM
Subject: Re: FWk: Re: Double-stranded
Economics
For that matter where is this "dog-eat-dog
fantasy world".
Enron.
Ray
Harry quoted me:
me It is, I think, even worse to start with ad hoc generalizations of the
me emergent properties of the aggregate and then employ them as
me hypotheses from which, with the application of scientific reasoning,
me we hope to deduce a science of the good society.
And opined:
Hi Harry and Arthur,
For the time being, let me take just one strand from your (HP's) latest
mail and attempt to show how economics can be used as a science. This will
never make the whole story at all times as we (HP and KH) both agree --
human nature is also involved -- but the overall
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: February 1, 2002 4:21 AM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur,
For the time being
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur,
For the time being, let me take just one strand from your (HP's) latest
mail and attempt to show how economics can be used as a science. This will
never make the whole
analysis is
misleading.
arthur
-Original Message-
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:21 AM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur
-
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:21 AM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur,
For the time being, let me take just one strand from
-
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:21 AM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur,
For the time being, let me take just one strand from
At 5:38 PM -0800 2002/01/31, pete wrote:
Some decades ago, I took a course in celestial mechanics, which used
the beautifully elegant Newtonian formulations to develop a framework
for computing the positions and movements of bodies under gravity,
Pete,
Your ideas reminded me of this:
When
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:40
AM
Subject: RE: Economics as a science (was Re:
Double-stranded Economics)
Arthur said: (snip)
And what would Keith's outline tell
China: do what you have always done, play to your resource strengths and
leave high tech
Pete
wrote:
HARRY (replying to
Keith): However, the Classical Political Economists didn't hide
behind
mathematical jargon. They looked at people and particularly at
persons.
And they hypothesized the rules that would apply to all the different
drives, instincts, genetic
propensities. And as you
Mike,
I said originally:
Man's desires are unlimited.
Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least
exertion.
(Gender sensitive people can change Man to
People.)
So, change it to people.
No problem.
Incidentally, Man and Mankind used to mean people before the feminists
decided to try witchcraft
of the trading world.
arthur
-Original Message-
From: Keith Hudson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:21 AM
To: Harry Pollard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded
Economics)
Hi Harry and Arthur
Keith,
I've clipped the first part, as we seem somewhat in agreement.
(HP)
There again, you'll recall that the single complicated human being is
not
analyzed in Classical Political Economy. Rather we look at his
connection
with the economic world, which is the way he exerts. The manifest
"Man's desires are unlimited."
Human desires are limited by many things.
Imagination, experience, love, hate, empathy, morality, poverty, boredom,
blindness, deafness, taste, or a lack of any of the above. I'm sure that
I could think more seriously about it if I wanted to.
Free Trade is not a political policy. It is natural for
humans to exchange.
True but that is a very simple thing.
What do you think about capital or speculation?
Protection is a policy that tries to prevent this
natural cooperation from happening.
No, protection is just one
: ECOMSubject: Economics as a science (was Re:
Double-stranded Economics)Hi Harry and Arthur,For the
time being, let me take just one strand from your (HP's) latestmail and
attempt to show how economics can be used as a science. This willnever
make the whole story at all times as we (HP
Sorry to follow up to my own post. I made a typo that makes a
sentence confusing:
For:
I don't see this as any less a religious dogma that All have sinned...
read
I don't see this as any less a religious dogma than All have sinned...
On Thu, 31 Jan, Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right to separate the two strands.
However, my separation would be different.
The science you speak of I think is mostly mathematics. Mathematics is
a great tool, but is never better than its premises. And they are often
highly
- Original Message -
From: pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:38
PM
Subject: FWk: Re: Double-stranded Economics
You won't get people "somewhat pinned
down" with any a priori assumptions. You build your engineering
53 matches
Mail list logo
