James A. Donald wrote:
> . . .
>You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not
>academically respectable. But much of it, most famously that by David
>Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain topics, it
>is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer.
Oh, what science is that? Economics is not a science. It's more
a branch of logic and I suspect that anyone who has actually
read David Friedman would most likely never mention "science."
> > When it comes down to a question of partisans and ideologues versus
> > analysts and scientists, I think we all know where to put our money.
>
>You are claiming that libertarian economists are partisans and ideologues,
>and that those dispute their position are analysists and scientists.
Theologians? Yes, true belief.
>If you compare Milton Friedman and David Friedman with Samuelson on topics
>on which they used to disagree, it is clear who was being more analytic and
>scientific.
This completely escapes me. It must be a virtue to be more scientific.
Hoping to clear this up.
