From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Date: Mon Oct 13 1997 - 11:25:48 MDT
> My problem with political theory and economic theory is
> general, not directed toward any particular brand.
> My problem is that these fields do not appear to be based
> on any agreed-upon set of fundamental facts. They differ
> from disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, and
> geology, which each have an agreed-upon basis. Economics
> and politics are in the same category of fuzzy science
> with psychology and sociology.
Well, of course it is! That's precisely the reason it
requires /more/ thought and discussion. Natural philosophy
(aka Physics) was once that way too, until Bacon and Newton
and Galileo showed us better ways to think about it and
test it. But the other fileds of philosophy on the edge
that don't yet have a solid method are that much more in need
of critical thought, so we can develop those methods. We
must not shy away from the job merely because it is difficult;
we must embrace it for precisely that reason.
There are a few exact mathematical methods used in Economics
and Politics; microeconomics, game theory, public choice theory,
etc. It is also true that there is a lot of Economics and
Politics outside of those exact mathematical models. But if we
shied away from tackling the hard questions that don't yet have
a scientific method, we never would have discovered science.
And besides, who is to say that "agreed-upon" methods are any
good in the first place? Truth is not a matter of consensus.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:02 MST