Various degrees of rationality in the principles assumed as the basis of

This science

The experimental method should not be confused with the empirical method,

and it is not necessary for us to dwell on something that can be ascertained by

reading any treatise on logic.

In Political Economy, therefore, as in any other science, one must always

find a way to go back to the more general and more rational causes, but every

step must be taken with the utmost caution, leaving the firm ground of observation

to soar into the unreliable realm of abstraction only for the shortest

possible time.

Marshall takes a big step, and he builds the science of economics on few

principles; but Walras and the German schoolXIV go even further. They create

a whole science from nothing, out of a single postulate – the hedonistic one.

In this respect, the science of economics could be seen as being similar to

astronomy, which rests entirely on a single principle.

This attempt is worthy of great consideration and careful study. Even if

this work does not turn out to be perfect, one can rest assured that it will be

of some benefit to the science of economics, were it only for the increased

rigour and precision that the demonstrations of that science will derive

from it.

However, all this does not detract from the merit of economists such as

Smith, Mill, J.-B. Say,XV Ricardo, Ferrara,XVI and many others, to whom we

owe all the truths we know in the science of economics. The new school does

not always do them justice, and though understandable – since, being under

attack, it strives to return blow for blow – this is not acceptable.

Classic economics is found wanting in the areas of form, precision

and demonstration rigour, but in actual fact we think these are very small

flaws.

The metaphysical concept of absolute perfection, which played a major

role in preventing the ancients from considering concrete truths, and led them

into the dreams of metaphysics, continues to cause damage in many sciences,

Considerations, I, May 1892 5

among which we must include Political Economy. Recognizing a truth and

providing a perfect proof of it are two quite different things. Almost every

theorem we know was demonstrated in ways that were later replaced by better

ones, without taking anything away from the discoverer’s merit.

* Among the countless examples, suffice it to mention that until the beginning

of this century, mathematicians used series without trying to demonstrate

their convergence. But this is certainly not a good enough reason to

detract from the fame of scientists such as D’Alembert,XVII Bernoulli,XVIII

Euler, LagrangeXIX and Laplace.XX

* In his course of analysis,8 Mr HermiteXXI does a calculation in which he

says that he is using a well-known method devised by Laplace for certain

approximate integrations. But anyone who checks that method in the Teoria

Analitica delle Probabilità,XXII will soon find that, while Hermite’s demonstration

is rigorous – as any by every other modern mathematician – Laplace’s

demonstration is not rigorous at all. Nevertheless, Hermite does not even

mention this fact, rightly judging, in our opinion, that the few words that

must be added to Laplace’s demonstrations to give them the necessary rigour

are of little importance, compared to the results achieved by that most

accomplished mathematician.

It is especially the concept of value that the new school sees as being wrong in

the economists of the classic school. And we believe that many of the

remarks made by Walras about the theories of Smith’s and J.-B. Say do hit

the mark. But if these economists did not use perfectly correct expressions, if

they even made mistakes in looking for the true cause of value, this did not

prevent them from discovering its laws, and after all, this is essentially what

mattered most.

The times of ontology have gone, and all sciences now study the concrete

properties of things without caring much about knowing their essence. It is

necessary to abandon the concept, found in Plato, that in order to discuss

correctly about any thing, one must first know its true nature. The value that

goods have on the market is a fact; we can look for its laws without knowing

from where that fact originates. It goes without saying that if someone is able

to connect that fact to another, more general fact, that will be all the better

for our science.

* Astronomers do not care much at all about the true nature of gravity,

and one day much bigger mistakes will perhaps be found in some of their

ideas on this topic, than those for which Prof. Walras reproaches Smith and

J.-B. Say.

* Carnot, who is credited with the second principle of thermodynamics,

XXIII did not express himself correctly in expounding it, and, not

knowing the first principle,XXIV he made the mistake of believing that heat

would not transform into work. Nevertheless, that second principle still bears

the name of its illustrious discoverer, whose work was later brought to

perfection.

6 Considerations, I, May 1892

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 845