Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 17:40:50 -0500
From: rahul-AT-peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul Mahajan)
Subject: Re: Economic field theory


>Rahul, thank you for your detailed response.  I think our main point
>of disagreement is that you are saying that reductions of higher-order
>to lower-order sciences are in principle always possible
>but in practice often too difficult, while I say, with Bhaskar, that
>they are in principle not always possible.  I also knew, or should
>have knownm, that you would heap abuse on me, but I consider this a low
>price for your confessions.  Please make yourself heard in the
>Bhaskar list, I think it would make a big difference for the level
>of discussion there.
>
>Hans.

Hans, the abuse, if you wish to call it such, was entirely merited, since
it is merely a response to the profound arrogance of your claim that
science is merely empirical monism. Have you ever read anything scientists
have to say about the state of their field, or their philosophies of
science?

No. I am not saying such reductions are always possible in principle. I
leave categorical statements based on ignorance, or, in this case, on the
impossibility of knowing, to philosophers. I am saying that the dogmatism
that many people are pushing, that such reductions themselves are
objectionable or wrong, is ridiculous. Instances where such reductions have
been made do exist and are generally of profound importance. In the absence
of any clear counterindications (I can't imagine what one would be), this
reduction should always be held in one's mind as a desideratum, even if
it's one that cannot be acted on immediately. There is absolutely nothing
to warrant a claim that such reductions are always possible in principle --
in fact, that would not even be a meaningful statement. Had you read my
response more carefully, you would note that I explicitly expressed the
possibility that certain reductions in the social sciences might just be
not humanly possible. If you continue to philosophize from cloud
cuckoo-land, you will naturally never appreciate the depth or subtlety of
the views scientists hold about their work, or the depth and subtlety of
the work itself.

I believe the only thing I've confessed to is being annoyed by people who
are constantly pushing very simplistic views of science and its philosophy,
presumably because they don't have enough specific knowledge to steer
themselves straight and are too arrogant to realize that.

Rahul




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---