File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0007, message 85


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005