tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post2183212588488612729..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Jonathan on Keynes on MethodologyEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61640417462963409832011-04-14T12:59:19.198-04:002011-04-14T12:59:19.198-04:00As a general rule methodology is just a mask for i...As a general rule methodology is just a mask for ideology.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-42644960347886331622011-04-14T00:50:41.142-04:002011-04-14T00:50:41.142-04:00OK, but then I'd choose a different term (as y...OK, but then I'd choose a different term (as you are doing in the last post, of course!) -- people are going to think of the philosophy if you use positivism.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30333126734561022932011-04-13T16:56:56.868-04:002011-04-13T16:56:56.868-04:00OK, but I specifically noted I wasn't refering...OK, but I specifically noted I wasn't refering to nor was I particularly concerned with philosophy of science. I certainly haven't defended logical positivism.<br /><br />As a practice or method, what ought I to call it - just leave it to "the scientific method" and presume it is clear. I'm not trying to make a deeper philosophy of science claim where I certainly (if imperfectly) understand the limits of positivism.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-7949786158064433122011-04-13T16:51:58.143-04:002011-04-13T16:51:58.143-04:00AJ Ayer, at one time the leading proponent of posi...AJ Ayer, at one time the leading proponent of positivism in the Anglo world, late in life was asked what the major defects of logical positivism were. He replied: "I suppose most of the defects were that nearly all of it was false."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-85099611673152015752011-04-13T16:46:18.421-04:002011-04-13T16:46:18.421-04:00No working scientists were ever positivists, Dan, ...No working scientists were ever positivists, Dan, at least not in their work. It was the realization of its unworkability if it actually had been tried as a way of doing science that killed it in the philosophy of science. (For instance, Goodman was showing a severe shortfall of positivism as a prescription with his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleen" rel="nofollow">new riddle of induction</a>.)gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49402107884945810102011-04-13T16:12:49.807-04:002011-04-13T16:12:49.807-04:00Whatever Keynes method you're right that shoul...Whatever Keynes method you're right that should not really bare on his accomplishments, nevertheless if you don't believe his accomplishments particularly worthy then analyzing the method of his approach could provide an explanation of why he came to the conclusions he did.Jonathan M.F. Catalánhttp://www.economicthought.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-65804699877497736902011-04-13T15:08:05.580-04:002011-04-13T15:08:05.580-04:00Would a method not be what is adopted in a particu...Would a method not be what is adopted in a particular case (as in a "methods" section), while a "methodology" is a broader approach to an algorithm for getting at understanding? Method, in other words, is a specific application of your "methodology".<br /><br />I'm simply asking as someone who is likely to be a lost cause, but is used to titling a section in a paper "methods" and talking more generally about "methodology".<br /><br />I agree on 2, particularly because the General Theory presupposed later empirical work and revision of theory. No point in laying out a <i>method</i> that you're not going to use in that text. I did not take Jonathan to be demanding a method from him so much as curious about it.<br /><br />On 3 - I suppose, but I am speaking of scientific practice and not a philosophical critique. Philosophy of science is perhaps a little more useful to scientists than ornithology is to birds, but as a practical matter I'm not sure positivism is so dead as it is as a philosophical matter. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding - I are you suggesting that its time has come even as a practical matter?dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19289065205854800042011-04-13T14:55:09.941-04:002011-04-13T14:55:09.941-04:001) I know, it's probably a lost cause, but I k...1) I know, it's probably a lost cause, but I keep trying: Jonathan is wondering about the <em>method</em> Keynes is using. "Methodology" should mean "the study of methods." Fritz Machlup wrote an entire paper arguing this point, and he was right.<br />2) It's fine to ask if Keynes discussed method at all, but if he didn't that should not affect or evaluation of his scientific accomplishments: self-consciousness about method is not a prerequisite for scientific success.<br />3) Looking to evidence does not necessarily make one a positivist. Positivism is fairly dead as a philosophy of science, but plenty of people still recommend looking at evidence!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.com