Here's why Ken Hanly's supposed analogy is ludicrous. 1. I was dealing with cases in which there are various possible interpretations of what someone said. In Ken's analogy, by assumption, there are not various possible interpretations of what someone (X) says. Rather, there are various interpretations of certain other events. This is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is a bait and switch. (What's the Latin for bait and switch?)
2. I indicated that it was illegitimate to use one possible interpretation of what Keynes said to conclude that s/he "can't be right." To arrive at that conclusion, one needs to show that there is *no* interpretation possible under which what Keynes said is right. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that the first interpretation is incorrect. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of another interpretation (according to which X's statement makes sense) supposedly disproves his own interpretation of X. Another bait and switch. 3. Nothing I wrote states or implies that the existence of another interpretation proves that Keynes' critics are wrong about the substantive matter. In Ken's analogy, however, the existence of an interpretation of objective events according to which X is not necessarily wrong about the substantive matter supposedly disproves Ken's claim that X is wrong. Still another bait and switch. Andrew Kliman -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not believe strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved that my intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation in which the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my claim. Cheers, Ken Hanly If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense.
