Economics begins in ideological form but it then becomes interpersonal, practiced and tested by others, in other words it acquires objectivity. As such it is no less a science than physics. the fact that economics moves slowly and physics does not, is of no relevance to its definition as science. Speed is a matter of relevance ONLY TO THE degree of control by the dominant ideology. further recall that the subject mater is dissimilar, ergo, the substance of the laws may vary to the degree and fashions in which the object mutates. so can it be said for simplicity that the laws of physics are more general and hold for a longer time: yes it can; but does this pre-empt economics from being called a science, no. therefore, the very notion of science is ideollogically determined in the present debate because the question of scientificity or not has no logical content- it is not a platonic form. It ceratinly cannot be argued as such without reference to practice. the days of Byzantine scholastic sohistry are over. therefore, economics is in the immediate, as we see it- that is, can be judged as the maens by which one class determines and explains why another class should be satisfied with less and be happy with it.
this i think should never be forgotten if one claims to be progressive, no? --- Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Martin, economics, as it now stands, may progress > at a rate > comparable to > > theology. > > > ========= > Another prediction! > > What's progress? > > Ian > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
