At 07:59 25/05/98 +0000, Eric Nilsson wrote: >Ricardo Duchesne wrote, > > Neoclassical economics (and much of marxist economics, I would > > add) is still positivistic in that they both accept the > >empiricist-analytical presuppositions of the natural sciences > >without reflection. > >The largest part of marxist, and other heterodox, economists >are mired in one of two perspectives: > 1-What they do is "obviously" true--based on casual empirical > observation--and what others do is obviously mere > "ideology" (with a small 'i'), defined crudely as lies, > because these others deny the self-evident facts. > 2-Everything is a paradigm or research program and, > so, "empirical facts" cannot be understood apart from > the paradigm. Paradigms/research programs cannot > justify themselves, therefore, by external empirical > evidence as such things do not exist. Indeed, in this > second perspective all uses of empirical "evidence" to > confront the claims of a paradigm are rejected: those > who insist on doing such things "just don't get it" and > are to be looked upon with pity. > >I think both of the above represent silliness. There are much more >sophisticated ways to go about thinking about the relationship >between "facts" and "theory." _____________ Could you please elaborate? I do agree with most of what you say above. Cheers, ajit sinha > >Eric >. >Eric Nilsson >Economics Department >CSUSB >San Bernardino, CA 92407 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >909-880-5564 > >
