Fortunately for physics there is an independent determinant of mass, that
is
gravitational acceleration which, in turn, is determined by the
gravitational field. So this provides a way out of this particular
circularity.
Albeit that this is hardly an unqualified triumph for physics, since the
Yes, maybe someday quantum gravitons will be found.
-Original Message-
From: Davies, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 6:55 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:22595] RE: RE: RE: Premises, Circularities etc was Re:
His tori cal Materialism
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
Well there's a fundamental philosophical issue at stake isn't there?
For my part, I'm more
I press serious objections and you respond by calling me a believer
and flag waver instead of facing up to the fact that you have not
provided compelling reasons for your very harsh negative judgement of
value theory.
I don't read your comments as a personal attack but as evidence of
frustration
Justin Schwartz wrote:
I met G and spoke to him when he was at the Institute and I was a Tigertown
undergrad . . . .
i hope you challenged him on his indefensible platonist epistemology! ;-)
--ravi
Justin Schwartz wrote:
I met G and spoke to him when he was at the Institute and I was a
Tigertown
undergrad . . . .
i hope you challenged him on his indefensible platonist epistemology! ;-)
--ravi
I sat down at the Student Center with a cheesesteak (Lord, those things were
- Original Message -
From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22604] Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Premises,
Circularities etc was Re: His tor ical Materialism
Justin Schwartz wrote:
I met G and spoke to him when
I press serious objections and you respond by calling me a believer
and flag waver instead of facing up to the fact that you have not
provided compelling reasons for your very harsh negative judgement of
value theory.
I don't read your comments as a personal attack but as evidence of
frustration
Ian Murray wrote:
As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has circularities of
it's own.
I wrote:what circularities are those? and why is circularity bad, unless
there is nothing to the theory but circularities? Physics and geometry, for
example, both involve circularities (e.g.
no, the definition of major concepts such as a point and a line are
quite circular.
No, they're primitives, which is different. It doesn't tell you anything you
don't already to know to say that a line is infinite extension in two
dimesnions without breadth, but it's not defined in terms of
Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your statement.
Trying to get out of this box, however, has resulted in a tremendous series
of advances in mathematics. I was impressed by this in reading a recent
popular account of the history of mathematics leading up to the solution of
Brown, Martin - ARP (NCI) wrote:
Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your statement.
are you talking about justin's statement that geometry does not involve
circularities and proceeds by axiomatic enumeration? if so, why do you
think gödel's theorem (i presume you are
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22533] RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
Assuming that ETIR refers to ECONOMIC THEORY IN RETROSPECT, I don't own a
copy. Could you please give one
physics.
-Original Message-
From: ravi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:22545] Re: RE: Re: RE: Premises, Circularities etc was
Re: His torical Materialism
Brown, Martin - ARP (NCI) wrote:
Re geometry. I think
So Ian seems to have taken Blaug's word for it.
I took this to mean that the quest to get a price theory out of KM's
theory of value was a mistake.
Marx was not interested in an equilibrium price theory (Mattick's
chapters in Marx and Keynes are good as are Korsch's chapters in Karl
Marx).
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the
ultimate implosion of
- Original Message -
From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22551] Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
So Ian seems to have taken Blaug's word for it.
==
No I didn't
Ian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22552] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so
Doug wrote:
As is always the case with these debates,
I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
Why is the value controversy so important?
Why is it so important for Justin to reject
it and Rakesh to defend it?
This is highly correlated with the question I was asking to
myself Doug: What
Martin Brown writes:
Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your [Justin's??]
statement. ...
which statement? and how does Goedel do so?
I'm not great mathematician, but I think that Goedel says that geometry and
many other sub-fields of mathematics, are, in some sense,
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain why I
reject the LTV. Then
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain
why I reject the LTV. Then
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I can't speak for those folks, since my mind-reading ability has evaporated,
but the reason
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22565] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what
:22559] Re: RE: RE: Premises, Circularities etc was Re:
His tor ical Materialism
Martin Brown writes:
Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your [Justin's??]
statement. ...
which statement? and how does Goedel do so?
I'm not great mathematician, but I think that Goedel says
Ian says: A great post.
thanks.
Below is our real problem. [our only one?] How would we fare with such a
disputant?
Ian quotes: In recent years, protectionism has also manifested itself in a
somewhat different guise by challenging the moral roots of capitalism and
globalization. At the risk
Sabri Oncu wrote:
So I would have
liked it more if the participants relate this theoretical debate
to its implications for changing the world.
I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
theory as a
I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
theory as a substitute for politics. Who needs to organize, if the
OCC will do the work for you?
people can think up lots of reasons to avoid politics. We
Hey, I think this debate is great. I can delete the whole day's
posts without reading them and think of the time I save ;-).
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Doug wrote:
As is always the case with these debates,
I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
Why is the
A contemptuous comment.
R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your pet theory
as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is normal for people
to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even to think the ideas and
reserach programs of others as fundamentally
A contemptuous comment.
R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your
pet theory as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is
normal for people to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even
to think the ideas and reserach programs of others as fundamentally
31 matches
Mail list logo
