Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> _If_ our critics are indeed right about something, yes, we should
> revise our views; if not, no. Let's use Hayek as an example, since
> we had threads on him recently. As our disagreements over Hayek have
> shown, it is _not_ that Marxist critics of Hayek think that planning
> should be defended even though Hayek has a correct criticism. We
> simply don't think that his criticism is correct
Implicit in many of the debates on lbo as well as pen-l is a profound
difference in understanding of the nature of error. Some participants
seem to assume that error is indicative (a) psychological disturbance (an
unhealthy mind), (b) moral defect (an unhealthy character), or (c)
stupidity on the part of the person in error. Some of us, on the other
hand, believe that those attitudes themselves are profoundly in error --
that being wrong gives no indication whatever of the moral, psychic or
intellectual health of the person who is wrong. One may be profoundly
moral, free of emotional disturbance, and hugely intelligent and learned
-- *and still be wrong*.
Justin thinks that Bhaskar is wrong (a subject on which I have no
opinion), and for Justin it follows that Bhaskar is an idiot and his
followers moral defectives (cultists). Doug believes that Yoshie is
wrong, and it follows that she is of weak character (arrogant).
As long as opinions are thought to be an index to the agent's character,
psychic health, or intelligence, there can not be rational discussion,
nor is there any chance of determining the source of error, since these
assumptions create too much fog.
Carrol
