[OPE-L:4176] : RE: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Fri Oct 20 2000 - 01:43:28 EDT

Re 4154

>The key problem I have with your approach, and I *hope* that at least some
>people on OPE share this concern, is that your procedure makes it
>effectively impossible to put what you see as Marx's logic into a format in
>which it can be tested for internal consistency. Popper described this kind
>of behaviour as the hallmark of a pseudo-science. While the philosophy of
>science has moved on a long way from Popper, his litmus test between a
>science and a non-science--that the former makes statements which can be
>falsified, whereas the latter makes it impossible to either verify or
>disconfirm itself--is still accepted.
>In other words, in the name of saving Marx from what you see as unjustified
>criticism, your approach effectively makes it impossible to make any
>criticism at all.
>I for one do not wish to "save" Marx in this fashion.

You do not indicate what in my or the TSS's position renders 
falsification impossible. You do not show why input prices=output 
prices is a test for internal consistency.

So before I respond, may I ask for a clarification.

Let me go back to a philosophy 101 example despite the erudition 
already displayed on this list

1. All ravens are black
2. It is not the case that all ravens are black
3. There is (or exists) a non black raven

So is this what you are saying????

1. All price of production systems are determined by an underlying value system
     or all value systems can be transformed into a price of production system
2. It is not the case that an equilibrium price of production system can be
    derived from a value  system or a value system can be transformed 
into simple
    reproduction at the same unit prices of production for the inputs as the
3. There exist price of production systems, viz. equilibrium ones, which cannot
    be determined by value

If this is what you are saying some quick questions:

a. are you assuming  that falsifiable hypotheses should take the form 
of universal generalisations
b. are you saying that your critics here are defining "system" in 
such an inherently temporal and sequential way that the 
falsifications simply cannot count as such?
c. are you saying that Popper thought falsification could be achieved simply
by constructing ideal models as negativising existential statements 
even if they had no empirical relevance?

I truly couldn't make heads or tails of your post.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST