I can't participate much today since I have a dealine, and anyway I think we've staked out our positions on value again to the lack of edification of all, but this raises a different question, one in philosophy of science. I am a skeptic about the utility of value theory, but value as a theoretical concept is no more objectionable in principle than any other unobservable theoretical construct. Utility. Force. Valence. Fitness.
Theoreticians construct models of phenomena using these concepts or others and see what the models can. If they serve our purposes, and in science, generate observable results, have predictive, explanatory, and unifying power, are simple and deep and elegant, then we accept the concepts used to construct them as referring to something real on the grounds that their existence is the best explanation of the power and efficacy of the models.
The defenders of value theory, to give them the benefit of the doubt, think that Marxian models using the concept of value -- socially necessary abstract labor time, according to me, though not according to Shane -- do real work. If the models did do that, there would be no problem with saying, value, defined that way or however you want to define it -- is real. at least no more problem tahn with saying that inclusive fitness is a real property on the basid of the success of Darwinian models of natural selection, say.
jks
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> I've seen the word being tossed aorund in many
> contexts, mainly because it
> creates "good vibes" since value soundls like a good
> thing, moral values,
> familiy, values, economic value, social value and so
> on. But what is it,
> exactly?
>
> What does the term "production of value" mean? We
> can produce things, like
> sneakers or automobiles, or services like curing
> diseases or telling other
> people how to live their lives. But where is value
> in those things, other
> than their price?
>
> Sorry to be such a nominalistic and materialistic
> bore, but debating
> abstractions with poorly defined or no empirical
> meaning always looked to me
> like a wild goose chase.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com