与平井一夫相反,拉姆齐在1922年和1926年对凯恩斯的批评是完全错误的

Michael Emmett Brady
{"title":"与平井一夫相反,拉姆齐在1922年和1926年对凯恩斯的批评是完全错误的","authors":"Michael Emmett Brady","doi":"10.22158/ape.v6n1p11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper covers Harai’s analysis, contained in his section, titled “Keynes as a philosopher”, of Keynes’s logical theory of probability. Harai spends too much of his time repeating Ramsey’s claims about having uncovered serious errors in the structure of Keynes’s relational propositional theory. .For 100 years, Keynes’s logical theory has been interpreted and misevaluated through the eyes of an ignorant 18 year old teenager. The result has been the proliferation and spread of what can be called the “Ramsey myth”.The “Ramsey myth” is that an 18 year old teenager appeared at Cambridge University in 1921.This 18 year old teenager was a genius who wrote a three page review in the Jan., 1922 issue of Cambridge Magazine, which supposedly destroyed, devastated and demolished the logical foundations of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability, which was his relational, propositional logic founded on Boole’s relational, propositional logic. Russell countered this in his review, but was ignored (See Brady, 2016a). In 1931, it is further supposed that Keynes then capitulated to Ramsey and repudiated his own logical theory of probability, accepting some version of Ramsey’s subjectivist theory. This myth is what Hirai’s paper is based on. It was false in 1921 and it is false today in 2022.","PeriodicalId":219226,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Politics and Economics","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrary to T. Hirai, Ramsey’s Critiques of Keynes in 1922 and 1926 Were Completely Wrong\",\"authors\":\"Michael Emmett Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.22158/ape.v6n1p11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper covers Harai’s analysis, contained in his section, titled “Keynes as a philosopher”, of Keynes’s logical theory of probability. Harai spends too much of his time repeating Ramsey’s claims about having uncovered serious errors in the structure of Keynes’s relational propositional theory. .For 100 years, Keynes’s logical theory has been interpreted and misevaluated through the eyes of an ignorant 18 year old teenager. The result has been the proliferation and spread of what can be called the “Ramsey myth”.The “Ramsey myth” is that an 18 year old teenager appeared at Cambridge University in 1921.This 18 year old teenager was a genius who wrote a three page review in the Jan., 1922 issue of Cambridge Magazine, which supposedly destroyed, devastated and demolished the logical foundations of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability, which was his relational, propositional logic founded on Boole’s relational, propositional logic. Russell countered this in his review, but was ignored (See Brady, 2016a). In 1931, it is further supposed that Keynes then capitulated to Ramsey and repudiated his own logical theory of probability, accepting some version of Ramsey’s subjectivist theory. This myth is what Hirai’s paper is based on. It was false in 1921 and it is false today in 2022.\",\"PeriodicalId\":219226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Politics and Economics\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Politics and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22158/ape.v6n1p11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Politics and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22158/ape.v6n1p11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文涵盖了原井在他题为“作为哲学家的凯恩斯”的章节中对凯恩斯的逻辑概率论的分析。原井花了太多时间重复拉姆齐关于发现了凯恩斯关系命题理论结构中的严重错误的说法。100年来,凯恩斯的逻辑理论一直被一个无知的18岁少年解读和错误评价。其结果就是所谓的“拉姆齐神话”的扩散和传播。“拉姆齐神话”说的是1921年,一个18岁的少年出现在剑桥大学。这个18岁的少年是个天才,他在1922年1月的《剑桥杂志》上写了一篇三页的评论,据说这篇评论摧毁了凯恩斯的《概率论》的逻辑基础,凯恩斯的《概率论》是建立在布尔的关系命题逻辑基础上的关系命题逻辑。Russell在他的评论中反驳了这一点,但被忽略了(见Brady, 2016a)。1931年,人们进一步认为凯恩斯向拉姆齐投降,否定了他自己的逻辑概率论,接受了拉姆齐主观主义理论的某些版本。平井的论文就是基于这个神话。这在1921年是错误的,今天在2022年也是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contrary to T. Hirai, Ramsey’s Critiques of Keynes in 1922 and 1926 Were Completely Wrong
This paper covers Harai’s analysis, contained in his section, titled “Keynes as a philosopher”, of Keynes’s logical theory of probability. Harai spends too much of his time repeating Ramsey’s claims about having uncovered serious errors in the structure of Keynes’s relational propositional theory. .For 100 years, Keynes’s logical theory has been interpreted and misevaluated through the eyes of an ignorant 18 year old teenager. The result has been the proliferation and spread of what can be called the “Ramsey myth”.The “Ramsey myth” is that an 18 year old teenager appeared at Cambridge University in 1921.This 18 year old teenager was a genius who wrote a three page review in the Jan., 1922 issue of Cambridge Magazine, which supposedly destroyed, devastated and demolished the logical foundations of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability, which was his relational, propositional logic founded on Boole’s relational, propositional logic. Russell countered this in his review, but was ignored (See Brady, 2016a). In 1931, it is further supposed that Keynes then capitulated to Ramsey and repudiated his own logical theory of probability, accepting some version of Ramsey’s subjectivist theory. This myth is what Hirai’s paper is based on. It was false in 1921 and it is false today in 2022.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信