From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> Subject: BHA: Re: Sraffa and Empirical Evidence Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:10:39 -0400 Hi Marsh-- > Now now there's no empirical evidence here, but that make it unscientific? > In particular, recall the context in which Sraffa wrote. Neoclassical > economics claimed scientific status for itself and certainly used empirical > evidence. Sraffa just used mathematical logic to demonstrate the > impossibility of neoclassical economics' claims. I would say that Sraffa's critique *is* scientific. Empirical evidence is not required to show that a theory is incorrect -- one can demonstrate that there is a logical flaw. That is what Sraffa's critique does. There are many issues on which a scientific theory must stand or fall; empirical evidence is only one of them. If, however, we went on to find out what Sraffa proposed instead of neoclassical economics (I don't know anything about this), then that alternative theory would have to be judged on empirical, logical, and whatever other criteria are appropriate (and may itself stand or fall on any one of them). --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-mail.com "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005