[OPE-L:5077] Re: On "Proof" --> or "Interpretation"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 09:39:44 EST

"Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> said, on 02/26/01:

>In reply to Paul Zarembka's OPE-L 5073.

>Paul, the fact that a model is not closed does not mean that one can
>close it any which way one wants.  If one introduces a relation that is
>inconsistent with other relations in the model, one just has a mess.

Please note a sentence in my posting:

    "Andrew achieves indeterminacy by suppressing an equation (rather than
arguing against the accuracy of the equation)."

This sentence should highlight that we are not discussing expanded
reproduction itself but the methodology of "proof".  Thus, we are
discussing the legitimacy of claiming "proof" of something by erasing an
equation and achieving indeterminacy.  This is the potential "swindle"
(tricking the reader) that can lead to mischief.


I'll not discuss the remainder of your 5074 which turns to the "accuracy"
of a particular equation and therefore would be an "interpretation".  But
I do suggest that the required procedure you need to achieve "proof" is to
prove the profitability of situations such as (but not necessarily) the

    "I once heard an anecdote, attributed to Kalecki: Q: What do you do if
the railroad from A to B is languishing from lack of traffic?  A: Build
another railroad from A to B, of course!  (Hence providing custom for the
first one in construction.)" [Allin in 4981]

In other words, you would need to attempt to "close" the model to achieve
the "proof" you are asserting.  I am not asking that you actually do this,
but to recognize its necessity before claiming "proof".  Most likely, such
an equation to achieve closure will be contested and therefore you have
differing "interpretations".  But at least it is not a swindle.

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST