I'm totally blown away by Justin's long critique of what I said about positivism and will have to digest it more. But I want to make one comment with regard to the following: Justin says: "Also, we can cite Kuhn and Lakatos against Popper. There is a function for dogma on science." One of the points I came upon in my reading is that there is _more than one_ Popper. There's the naive falsificationist -- against whom Kuhn and Lakatos have a lot to say -- but there's also the "critical rationalist." (See Caldwell, Bruce J. 1991. Clarifying Popper. The Journal of Economic Literature and also Homa Katouzian, IDEOLOGY AND METHOD IN ECONOMICS (NYU Press, 1980.) Critical rationalism -- which should not be identified with Popper's whole work -- would say "There is a function for dogma in science -- but we should be clear what is dogma and what is not." For example, we should be clear that the utility maximization assumption is part of the dogma of neoclassical economics. That dogma may be necessary, but that's another question. BTW, Katouzian, who seems sympathetic to Marx, argues that Popper misinterpreted Marx, making a lot of points against the misinterpretation rather than Marx himself. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
