---Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Reply (sigh)
> 
> You are wrong Steve.  Your paradigm revolves around the rational
economic
> man axiom.  A theory (or paradigm) is made up of core hypotheses AS
WELL AS
> auxiliary hypotheses.  Sure there is change (evolution) within that
greater
> paradigm relating to the auxiliary hypotheses but the REVOLUTION
encompasses
> the all.  Just because you have changed WITHIN your larger paradigm
doesn't
> mean you have a record of questioning the biggie. There is analogy in
> chemistry and physics (physics advanced between Newton and Einstein
as well,
> until Einstein instigated the revolution that was relativity.  So
you get
> Aristotelian physics - then evolution --> growing problems and
> inconsistencies --> revolution (Newton) --> evolution --> growing
anomalies,
> etc. --> revolution (Einstein).  All are incommensurable one to the
other.
> Each was believed by many as the reality.  But they progressed
because some
> people finally got so fed up that they questioned the hypotheses.  The
> mainstream don't tend to question them - they just get on with
progressing
> within that paradigm (Kuhn's "normal" science).  Some die believing
the
> former paradigm, or else the overwhelming evidence causes them to
"shift" (a
> la an ecological non-linear revolutionary tip point) as well.  Even
> economics has members who are seriously questioning the REM axiom. 
You

Wait I thought you said we were a bunch of religious fanatics out to
destroy the world?

> would consider them heretics - perhaps question their intelligence -
because
> the old approach is so obviously correct to those who have a socially
> constructed belief in what you consider so obvious.  You can accept
changes

Yes we would, and we would burn them at the stake.

> in the auxiliary hypotheses, like evolution within Christian
catechisms, but
> the "Son of God" axiom - the core - remains.
> 
> There is an element of religion (people who believe without
questioning) in
> science as well as economics.  But the difference (I think) between
> economics and science is that we are continually told that
everything in
> science is "just a theory", and are more accepting of the testing of
that
> theory.  Economists (I'm sorry - MOST economists) don't question the
biggie.

The problem here is that you have assumed that since you do not see a
revolution that nobody questions the "biggie" and that we accept it as
being a good description of reality. (Lets not mention that you have
just contradicted yourself)  However, first an alternative has to be
found.  Second, once the alternative is found it has to be shown as
being better than the current set of axioms.  Of course since most
economists do not go around engaging in questioning of the underlying
axioms we must clearly believe them as being actual descriptions of
reality and are therefore somehow bad.  I guess the only thing
biologists do is question their basic theories none of them try to
extend the existing theories, test the existing theories, etc.  Oh,
but wait biologists still hold to the theory of evolution.  Ahhh gee
whiz, I guess they are a bunch of religious kooks like us economists.

> The result of REM is a shortening of the appropriate temporal and a
> narrowing of the spatial context that makes up your "world view". 
So future
> environment's and future society's value is diminished in your
analysis, as
> is the less tangible elements outside the market.  That includes
current
> society and the environment.  Most economists ignore social
construction in
> peoples' perceptions, and therefore actions, and they construct an
imaginary
> world based on infinite individuals and firms with equal power
relationships

First, economists do not always work with models of perfect
competition.  Also, which is it?  Do economists ignore "power
relationships" or do we just treat them unrealistically?

> to produce a linear future.  Many of you don't perceive non-linear
> ecological tip points as the nature of reality - instead many
economists
> would blame government for causing such non-linear tip points as
economic
> collapse on governments interfering with the "Market", which
supposedly
> would have produced the goods if only.....  The empirical evidence
is that
> EXTREME market models produce inequalities, and considerable losers

What is an extreme market model?

> (including the environment), largely to do with excessive collection
of
> power.  Government in the form of democracy and civic institutions
is the
> only bulwark against that inevitable trend (and I do believe along
with
> Chomsky here - so no doubt I "don't know what I'm talking about" as
you
> stated of Chomsky), yet the extreme proponents of the market as
almost the

Yes I agree with you here.  Government is inherently bad nor good.  I
think the government has done both.  Further, there is loads of
corporate welfare so I don't think government is the answer to
problems created by corporations.

> Steve wrote
> But medical biochemistry also has its own axioms, and these axioms
are not
> directly tested either.  It is in the same boat as economcis.  Go
ask a
> doctor about a "non-traditional" approach to curing a given ailment.
 The
> doctor would probably make derisive comments about the
"non-traditional"
> approach.  What about the "cranks" and "crack pots" that complain
about
> modern medicines desire to medicate problems away and are unwilling
to look
> at alternatives that are outside of the traditional paradigm?  You
are very
> very disingenous here in that every science has derided the "cranks"
and
> "crack pots" when they first appeared.
> 
> 
> Reply
> 
> That science has initially derided the "cranks" who change paradigms
I have
> fully accepted, and made reference to with regard to Lavoisier and
> Copernicus.  I accept that science has believers.  The difference
is, in
> science, the culture is one of accepting the empirical testing of the
> relationship between the real world and the "Theory".  And we refer to
> theories NOT axioms, therefore scepticism is openly advocated.  It
is true
> that this inevitably produced the sceptical response to new ideas,
but I
> think they respect the ACT of questioning.  Economics deals in the
context
> of a major axiom.  You have stated that it is "not subject to
refutation".
> I don't think there are many scientists who would agree to that
statement.
> That makes economics more of a religion than science.

[snip]

So I suppose every biologist really is open to the idea of intelligent
design and that it is not a theory held only by a few who are
considered "cranks"?

Steve

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%