Difficulty of the topic

Considerations on the

Fundamental principles of Pure

Political Economy, I

(Giornale degli Economisti,

May 1892)

Introductory remarks

In keeping with the general propensity of natural sciences to progress

towards a higher degree of perfection, Political Economy has for some years

now been showing a tendency to replace the qualitative method used in its

beginnings with the quantitative one.

In fact, one could not say that economists have until now neglected the

quantitative principle, in the same way ancient physics never totally did; but

its use by economists was always limited, whereas now it is increasing and

becoming prevalent in the study of economics.

If we consider what has happened to the other sciences, we shall easily

come to the conclusion that Political Economy would not extract a lesser

benefit from the use of the quantitative method than the one they attained.

However, if we do not wish to forgo all necessary prudence, we must at the

same time add that one should not deem any method as good or any

theorem derived from it as true only because it carries the ‘quantitative’

label.

In our view, all arguments regarding the method that should be adopted in

a particular science are somewhat useless. Only from experience can one find

out the benefit that can be attained from using a given method. Employ

whatever reasoning method you prefer, seek the support of history, physics,

mathematics, accept or reject the evolutionary theories, and, if ancient logic

does not satisfy you, apply the new mathematical logic; all is allowed, all is

fair, provided you can discover new truths, or shed new light on old ones, and

rectify errors; in short, if you can increase the quantity or the quality of

human knowledge. Here the public lies in wait, and your work will be judged

according to the new ideas it divulges.

If it is to be found later, that it is possible to arrive at the goal that you have

reached through an easier path, such a path will replace the method you used,

but without taking anything away from the praise you deserve for having

increased our scientific wealth. Celestial mechanics treatises no longer make

use of the synthetic form of Newton’s demonstrations,I but this has not

detracted from the reverence and admiration that every mathematical

scientist feels for that man, whose genius was certainly equal, if not greater

than any of the most outstanding human beings.

On the other hand, considerations on methodology are not only legitimate,

but also necessary, when they arise as a consequence of the quest to find

whether a proposition is true or not. If a theorem seems right to some scientists

but is not, it is not a waste of time to search for the reasons for their

mistake, in order to avoid it in the future.1 It is still necessary diligently

to examine the premises of any new proposition, and the quantity and the

quality of the rigour of the deductions that stem from it.

Difficulty of the topic

Anyone who wishes to learn any science, such as physics or mathematics,

knows that it will imply hard work, and while they can ask the author whom

they are studying to ease the burden, they cannot expect it to be completely

removed, as some people seem to expect in the study of Political Economy,

which is accused by ThiersIII of being ‘a kind of boring literature’ – as if in the

study of any science one should pursue one’s personal enjoyment, rather than

the usefulness and pleasure of acquiring the knowledge of new truths.

The reader who wishes to acquire wholesome and precise concepts of the

theorems of economics must shed all such prejudices. In turn, the author

must make sure that the difficulties of the topic are not increased through his

fault, and that the reader is not subjected to more hard work than is required

by the very nature of the subject matter.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 937