<< What you seem to have translated Laibman's statement into, ala Kuhn, is: a
paradigm, or world view, that underlies a whole corpus of theories, can only be
changed by substituting a different paradigm (i.e., marxist vs. neoclassical as
competing paradigms). True of course. Tautology in fact.
Following the later Kuhn, who wished he had never utter the word "paradigm," I didn't, so I don't think you can stick that paradigm on me. I didn't say anything so lofty as a world view. And the Kuhnian insight is hardly an uninteresting tautology. It was a Copernican revolution in philosophy of science, and if it seems so common sensical now as to look like a tautology, that reflects the degree tow hick K succeeded in changing our minds about how science works.
> But I doubt if Laibman meant paradigm when he said theory. That would have
been
uninteresting, and Doug wouldn't have thought it silly, would he?
Well, I wouldn't have thought it uniniteresting even if he had meant the "P" word, but I diodn't think he did, so I didn't use it myself.
> Marxism a creaky 19th century structure? >>
Marxist economics, with all that value-theoretical baggage? You better believe it. The rest of Marxism, maybe not, or less so. But I am exceeding unorthodox.
--jks