Malthus and Ricardo on Economic Methodology

The paper is a comparative study of the methodologies of Malthus and Ricardo. Its claims are: (i) economic laws almost always admit of exceptions for Malthus; for Ricardo even contingent predictions allow no exception apart from random temporary variations; (ii) both rely on the prestigious Newtonian paradigm, while interpreting it according to two distinct methodological traditions (the one deriving from MacLaurin, the other from Priestley); (iii) the choice of stressing what happens during intervals or in permanent states leads to opposing definitions of the main problem of economic science in so far as equilibrium is always already given for Ricardo and is never given for Malthus; (iv) their use of the ambiguous notion of "tendency" leaves unclear for both the degree of predictive power with which theories are endowed; (v) what both share is the idea of a natural order and this idea is the source of both shortcomings and endless disagreement

The Unitarian Connection and Ricardo's Scientific Style

We reply to Philippe Depoortère’s paper “On Ricardo’s method: The Unitarian influence examined. Some comments on Cremaschi and Dascal’s article ‘Malthus and Ricardo on Economic Methodology’”. Depoortère asks two questions: (1) was Ricardo’s ‘conversion’ to Unitarianism sincere? (2) did Ricardo follow the methodologies of Priestley and Belsham? His answers are that he was a ‘religious skeptic’ and he was not an ‘empiricist’ like Priestley and Belsham. We reply that the sincerity of Ricardo’s religious beliefs is irrelevant since we start with the evidence that he was exposed for a long time to the intellectual influence of Belsham, primarily in matters of philosophy, and to deny this would imply a negative answer to a different question, namely, did Ricardo attend Unitarian meetings for 15 years? Then we reply that Ricardo inherited Belsham’s version of Newtonian methodology which omitted the fourth rule, that is the most anti-Cartesian and anti-systematic rule, and this has little to do with empiricism but instead with apriorism

Persuasion and Argument in the Malthus-Ricardo Correspondence

We reconstruct the text, that is, we analyse the development of the discussion between Malthus and Ricardo both in the correspondence and in published works, paying special attention to (a) the use of methodological statements, (b) some pragmatic features of the controversy, (c) considerations pertaining to the meta-level of the controversy (assessments of the status of the controversy, of ways of solving it, etc.); then, we reconstruct the co-text, that is, unpublished papers by each opponent that were not made available to the other, records of exchanges between each of these and third parties, etc.; thirdly, we describe the essential features of the context, focusing on events that influenced the course of the controversy; (iv) we draw lessons from our case study on the role of co-text and context, on pragmatic and semantic interpretation, and on "casts of mind”

Epistemología, controversias y pragmática

Not available.En este artículo quiero presentar y defender la tesis de que el impasse en que se encuentran la epistemología y la historia de la ciencia desde hace un par de décadas se debe en gran parte, o bien a la total ignorancia. o bien al tratamiento equivocado del rol jugado por las controversias científicas en la evolución de la ciencia. Para hacerlo, tendré que empezar por una aclaración preliminar del impasse a que me refiero (sección 1). Luego, explicaré por qué veo en el estudio de las controversias científicas una pieza fundamental para solucionarlo (sección 2), identificaré la posición de díchas controversias en el seno del conjunto de los fenómenos empíricos del tipo 'discurso polémico' (sección 3) e indicaré las propiedades de tales controversias que explican su rol potencial para solventar el impasse (sección 4). Pasaré enseguida a mostrar el modo en que las opciones epistemológicas existentes son incapaces de tratar las controversias de manera satisfactoria, lo que explica su incapacidad para resolver el impasse (sección S). Más adelante expondré un desideratum esencial para resolver ese impasse (sección 6), e indicaré de qué manera cabe satisfacerlo empleando la pragmática como instrumento y como modelo (sección 7). Lo que se me antojó, en un principio, un artículo relativamente corto, se ha ido transformando progresivamente en un texto complejo y extenso, más digno de un ensayo. He tratado de acortarlo, reduciéndolo a lo esencial. De ahí que algunas afirmaciones puedan parecer dogmáticas e insuficientemente fundamentadas. Espero cumplir con el onus probando que me compete llevar a cabo en el prometido ensayo. Pero no quise dejar de publicar su esbozo en estas reflexiones, para poder - cuando menos así lo espero- beneficiarme de la crítica

Árabes e judeus em Israel: identidades em fluxo

A maioria dos conceitos cruciais para as discussões sobre as relações entre judeus e árabes em Israel não são conceitos “clássicos”, definíveis em termos de condições necessárias e suficientes, e sim “conceitos-cacho”. No decorrer da evolução do conceito, algumas propriedades podem entrar no cacho e outras podem deixá-lo; e o grau de centralidade de uma propriedade também pode variar historicamente. Assim, a caracterização de uma identidade como essencialista – rígida, imutável – parece ser a exceção, e não a regra. Essa conceitualização proporciona novos horizontes para o conflito em questão: contribui, por exemplo, para a consciência de cada um dos dois grupos de que suas respectivas “identidades” coletivas são mais fluidas e até mesmo cheias de conflitos do que suas declarações pomposas gostariam que o outro lado acreditasse. São apresentados, aqui, obstáculos e fatores favoráveis à implementação do modelo proposto na solução dos impasses entre os dois grupos. Identities in flux: Arabs and Jews in Israel - Abstract: Most of the concepts that are crucial for the discussions about the relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel are not “classical” concepts, definable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather “cluster concepts”. In the course of the concept evolution, some properties may enter the cluster and others may leave it; and the degree of centrality of a property may also vary historically. Thus, the characterizing of an identity as essentialist – rigid, unchangeable – seems to be the exception rather than the rule. This conceptualization affords new horizons for the conflict in question: it contributes, for instance, to the realization by each of the two groups that their respective collective “identities” are more fluid, and even conflict-ridden, than their pompous declarations would wish the other side to believe. Obstacles and favorable factors to the implementation of the proposed model for the solution of the deadlock between the two groups are presented here

‘Cognitive systemic dichotomization’ in public argumentation and controversies

We describe and analyze an important cognitive obstacle in inter- and intra-community ar-gumentation processes, which we propose to call \u27Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization\u27 (CSD). This social phenomenon consists in the collective use of shared cognitive patterns based upon dichotomous schemati-zation of knowledge, values, and affection. We discuss the formative role of CSD on a community’s collec-tive cognition, identity, and public discourse, as well as the challenges it raises to reasoned argumentation, and how different approaches to argumentation undertake to face this obstacle to the reasonable debate of issues of public concern

The burden of criticism

Some critical reactions hardly give clues to the arguer as to how to respond to them convinc-ingly. Other critical reactions convey some or even all of the considerations that make the critic critical of the arguer’s position and direct the arguer to defuse or to at least contend with them. First, an explication of the notion of a critical reaction will be provided, zooming in on the degree of ‘directiveness’ that a critical reaction displays. Second, it will be examined whether and to what extent there is a normative requirement to strive after criticism that is more than minimally directive. In this paper, it is hypothesized that the com-petitiveness inherent in critical discussion must be mitigated by making the opponent responsible for providing her counterconsiderations, if available, thus assisting the proponent in developing an argumenta-tive strategy that defuses them

La sémiologie de leibniz

Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1978

Interpretaçao e compreençao

Trad. Márcia Heloisa Lima da Rocha, supervisada por el autor. São Paulo: Ed. Unisinos, 2005. 729 p