Archives for 

Paragraph for the book

0.01 SLUB HC Existential Assumptions

Adopting a few assumptions explicitly as requirements for common understanding of what we are doing in the SLUB HC may be useful:

Slide03

Only a few comments (and references — these are not referring to anything required for the HC). The C.P. Snow address was republished in extended form in 1965. (Snow, C. (1965). The Two Cultures: and A Second Look, An expanded version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press.)

The phrase “Binds and Blinds” is taken from Haidt, who researched for sociological/psychological universals that can help explain the emergence of hardening cultural differences, as rather recently in USA politics between Republicans and Democrats (Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Allen Lane.)

“δ culture” is a concept introduced by me and not generally recognized at all. Yet I have reasons to bring it to the fore as a central concept for our discussions. First, “δ dulture” refers to the disciplinary culture adopted by the econometric turn in the last 60 years. It has combined a successful patronising attitude with gaining tremendous influence in day to day politics, and with concurrently and successfully fencing off the rather devastating empirical falsifications of basic assumptions – in general by employing mathematical opacities-for-the-general-public. Few economists succeed in surviving the disciplinary ostracisation that tends to follow such critics from within. Bowles seems to have done so, and perhaps Beinhocker too.

Anyway, for the interested: the first three Chapters of Beinhocker’s (Beinhocker, E. D. (2007). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics. Random House.) address these issues, and Bowles’ (Bowles, S. (2006). Microeconomics: behavior, institutions, and evolution. Princeton University Press.) provides a complete alternative for Economic’s education. The debate between neo-classical and post-Walrasian economists is fascinating, and far from being resolved. As such it provides an example of disciplinary cultural discomfort. The neo-classical tack in this debate is exceptional in its paradigmatic robustness in the face of empirical falsification. Thus, my need for (and introduction of) the additional “δ culture.”

During the meeting Binmore’s problems with Kant’s categorical imperative came to the fore. Here is the reference: (Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. Oxford University Press, USA).

0.00 On the HC SLUB (in general)

I will upload a few of the slides presented (or left aside for reasons of time) in week one with very short comments that ought be accessible to participants. Here is the first: The SLUB honours class addresses (in a multidisciplinary manner, based on some of the “Manuals” for legal professionals) the reasons why proponents […] Continue reading →