Dear Allan
what exactly is a fact?
>Is that a fact?
On Fri, 17 Jun 1994 04:46:08 -0700 BILL MITCHELL said:
>so i do not acknowledge any distinction between the objective and the
>subjective. i understand the argument that people use to justify it - but to
>deny it is not to state a fact.
dear Gil
according to first hand reports mass slaughter of jews and russians and others
occurred in the 1940s.
as a value community we accept that this event occurred. you can call it a fact
but i call it an extension of our values. after all, the nazis then and now
would say different things about the events. once again an extension of their
(heinous) value system.
but the context in which i raised this point in the first place was in the
science/non-science, orthodox/marxism debate. i said and i say it again,
mainstream economics which you seek to borrow tools and concepts on to advance
radical conclusions which can be advanced more securely and "honestly" in the
radical paradigm, uses the fact/value distinction to seek authority for their
own values.
they have a particular (untestable) set of theoretical postulates which they
seek to impose on everythin they see as (so-called economic). they seek
endorsement for this prejudicial imposition by an appeal to some trumped up
notion they call (borrowing from elsewhere) science. despite the fact they
never test their hard core because it is untestable, and ignore observational
equivalence problems, they claim that data is an objective entity (facts) which
can give testimony to their "positive" theories (that is, theories which are
meant to be free from values).
just the point that they choose an individual as the basis of analysis shows
their values.
so w.r.t. the holocaust - science according to this lot should help us explain
it by examining your so-called facts. sure we agree something happened then,
but neither the nazis or the non-nazis can explain it in terms that are
independent of their values. so these facts you seek to distinguish will always
just sit their to comfort our prejudices.
you see the holocaust in all its abhorrence b/c of certain values you have -
the "facts" comfort these values although comfort can be a negative thing. the
nazis see it as a sigh that their (vile) aryan ideals have a manifestation and
a praxis. comfort again.
neither of you can explain it in any "independent" terms.
so why bother with the distinction? i say it just gives mainstream economic all
the fuel they need to push this stupidly apologist positive/normative
distinction.
as to preachers and evangelists - well recall my Joan Robinsn quote about
economics being a branch of theology - it is all a matter of faith.
i go along with that for sure - it just happens i think that my faith
might pull a few fiscal levers in the direction of the unemployed, or in the
direction of some environmentally sound things to do, and is far better than
some other nutcase chanting to the heavens and passing a bowl around to expand
his/her/their personal fortune(s).
kind regards and amen
bill
*******************************************************************************
William F. Mitchell Telephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\
Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ about
The University of Newcastle Fax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*<-- here
Callaghan NSW 2308 v
Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************************
