[OPE-L:4707] Re: value vs potential value

Paul Cockshot (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:09:51 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Mike williams
> 1. Reality is complex, so 'parsimony' may conflict with realism.
No conflict. Reality is complex but one should not build more complexity
into ones theory than is necessary.

The principle is that 'entities should not be multiplied without due
What is the due cause for assuming that both price and value vary in
to demand?

In a marshallian frame work with a rising supply curve one might be
able to justify it. Is this what you are arguing?

> 2. Parsimony is a criterion of theory choice only within the philosophy
> (natural) science. What is more, this philosophy of science does not
> to be central to current (post Quine) concerns of philosophy of science,
> that rather seem to be oriented around the debate between 'constructive
> empiricism' (van Fraassen) and varieties of scientific realism.
I tend to favour the australian materialist school of Smout, Price etc.

> 3. Your naturalism is not self-evident, but needs to argued for.
Yes, Lenin did this in Materialism and Empiro Criticism.