I would say rather than the way cet. par. is actually used for the most part in economics means holding constant all variables other than those being considered in order to stipulate a function for modeling convenience. This methodological constraint appears to me to make the statement mathematical, hence tautological and non-empirical, rather than empirical but ambiguous.
There is nothing wrong with doing this as heuristic gadget as long as one realizes what one is doing in apply this constraint, that is, constructing a mathematical expression. However, imputing empirical significance to mathematical expressions entails the possibility of falsification through empirical warrant. Holding that the so-called law of supply and demand is a "law" implies that this expression is a general proposition, therefore capable of being falsified by a single counter-instance. But cet. par. is a hedge against that possibility, thereby invalidating the universal claim of invariance.
To conflate syntactical truth of logical necessity, whose criterion is logical consistency, with semantic truth based on correspondence of possible states of affairs with actual facts based on empirical warrant is an example of what Ludwig Wittgenstein called the bewitchment of intelligence by means of language. Logical pedigree is being confused with empirical warrant.
Econospeak
The "Ceteris Paribus" AssumptionSandwichman
No comments:
Post a Comment