tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post116294960086608145..comments2024-01-28T01:53:28.605-08:00Comments on hyperborea: The Eclipse of Modernism and the Rise of Methodological Rhetoricutopia or busthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09330052275507966278noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-30797352885348172742009-09-14T16:40:21.319-07:002009-09-14T16:40:21.319-07:00Dear Acumensch,
Your essay on my work is sensible...Dear Acumensch,<br /><br />Your essay on my work is sensible and interesting. But I do wish you would not refer to me throughout as "he." I don't imagine you meant it to be an insult, but for anyone who knows my (interesting) history it sounds like one.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Deirdre McCloskeyUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05638820963402539684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-1163998764482633142006-11-19T20:59:00.000-08:002006-11-19T20:59:00.000-08:00That's clever. If economists cannot use modernism ...That's clever. If economists cannot use modernism in the first place, that means it must have been rhetoric all along, which is what McCloskey argues. So we should realize this fact, and this would result in more fruitful economic debates. I didn't mention this in the post, but McCloskey isn't against "formalism" in economics if it is in fact useful. Formalism meaning the excessive use of mathematical modeling in economics. Formalism is simply a tool to be used in rhetorical argumentation.Acumenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14502771279290190296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25892266.post-1163282711456081072006-11-11T14:05:00.000-08:002006-11-11T14:05:00.000-08:00Then has rhetoric actually eclipsed modernism? Or ...Then has rhetoric actually eclipsed modernism? Or was there ever a modernism in the first place? If that's what you say economics actually do: rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com