It's a Battlefield Out There

[Rakesh Bhandari]

First, an apology to Justin. I should not have used the word ad hoc. In his
last post, Justin would differentiate between analytical and value
theoretic explanations. It's not clear to me what work analytical is doing.
It seems that explanation on the basis of the law of value is what Justin
is ruling out while recommending good--not ad hoc, not
contigent--explanations broadly consistent with historical materialism in
their place.  Again, what Justin means by analytic I do not understand, but
this should stimulate me to read his published work.

If Justin still objects to this characterization,  I will of course
reconsider. And since I have only read some of Cohen's essays in History,
Labor and Freedom, not the big book, I have not read Justin's reply.
It was Jim F who (I think) suggested the influence of Hempel on Cohen.

I am confused by Justin's argument that Hempel gave up the distinction
between theoretical and observational terms in 1965. I refer him to the
publication of that year Aspects of Scientific Explanation, esp the essay
The Theoretician's Dilemma. Though written in 1958, there is no postscript
retracting the argument. Where does Hempel abandon it? Why did the rest of
the profession abandon it? At any rate, doesn't value in Marx's theory have
the properties of what Hempel calls a theoretical term?
yours, rakesh
>
>R: Justin would reduce Marx's project to a series of
> ad hoc explanations compatible with a broad understanding of historical
> materialism. That is a lethal project, not a salvaging of Marx's critique
> of political economy.
>
>JKS: This is an individious and mistaken characterization. AT least if you
>want to make it stick, you have to look at what I've done in the area and show
>that it's merely ad hoc, etc.
>
>--jks
>  >>