Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:59:59.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Reading and Arguing: A Reply to Ahiakpor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Rod O'Donnell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To declare my case “not proven” is irrelevant. I agree my case is not proven, but all other cases on this topic, including Ahiakpor's, are equally unproven. Arguing about proof here is a waste of time. We simply do not have enough data for deductive certainty or even for the less stringent criterion of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” The written record is not conclusive and the protagonists are dead. What is not a waste of time, however, is discussing probabilistic inferences from incomplete evidence.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 43 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blake, R. 1970. “A Personal Memoir.” In Eltis, W., Scott, M. and Wolfe, J., eds, Induction, Growth and Trade: Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, R. 1978. “Sir Roy Harrod.” Journal of International Economics 8, 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps Brown, H. 1980. “Sir Roy Harrod: A Biographical Memoir.” Economic Journal 90 (03): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, S. 1978. “Sir Roy Harrod.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 1(1): 124–5.Google Scholar
Young, W. 1989. Harrod and his Trade Cycle Group. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar