Bert Mosselmans

William stanley jevons and the extent of meaning in logic and economics

This paper shows that William Stanley Jevons was not precursor of logical positivism despite his attempt to build up a unified science. His mechanical reductionism was directed towards this project, and Jevons tried to found mathematics on logic through the development of a theory of number. We show that his attempts were unsuccessful, and that his errors remain visible within the totality of his mechanical system, including his economics. We argue that both his logic and his economics are comprehensible only when interpreted in terms of extent of meaning, and that Jevons’ system gives rise to difficulties when interpreted in terms of intent of meaning. We argue that Jevons’ methodological recommendations were intended to bridge the gap between extent and intent of meaning. Although Jevons did not succeed in establishing a unified science, his flawed methodology resulted in one of the first applications of statistics to the social sciences

Adolphe Quetelet, the average man and the development of economic methodology

Abstract Quetelets contribution to statistics has received adequate attention in Stigler (1986, 1999) and Porters (1986) seminal works on the history of that scientific discipline. 24 Our contribution investigates Quetelets influence on economic methodology. Other scholars have already investigated his influence on econometrics and empirical economics (Morgan 1990, Stigler 1999), but we argue that his influence on theoretical economics should be considered significant as well. We devote attention to Quetelets concept of the ‘average man’. For this purpose we briefly summarize Quetelets methodology and examine the evolution of his ideas as expressed in his published works. We then investigate his influence on Jevonss ‘calculus of pleasures and pains’ and on the statistical investigations of the German historical school. We argue that the history of statistics, and especially Quetelets contribution, should not be neglected by historians of economic thought as it provides important insights into the development of economic methodology.

Reproduction and scarcity: the population mechanism in classicism in the 'Jevonian revolution'

We argue that the shift from classicism to neoclassicism in nineteenth-century Britain can be seen as a change from a reproductive environment with internal scarcity, as in Malthuss population mechanism, towards a non-reproductive environment with external scarcity, as in Jevons theoretical and applied economic work. We reconsider Jevons use of seemingly classical concepts as well as the role of the population mechanism in Jevonss works.

Mimesis and the representation of reality: A historical world view

The representation of reality is a fundamental concept in the perception of theworld. Its historical consideration leads to an understanding of historical andcontemporary culture. In this paper we specifically investigate theanthropometric stage of cultural development as a historical world view. Wedefine this stage on the basis of René Girards hypotheses on the origin ofculture, and we isolate its principles. Next, we consider the function of art asthe representation of cultural values. We investigate the three major motivesof artistic representation in the anthropometric stage, i.e. beauty, dramatizationand mimesis. We show how and why these motives play an essential partin the obfuscation and explanation of the origin of culture. Finally, we showhow these developments are dealt with in the aesthetics of Plato and Aristotle.

The omitted mathematics of Hans von Mangoldt

Discusses the economic thought of Hans von Mangoldt (1824‐1868). We discuss how this German classical author seems to anticipate later “neoclassical” ideas, such as Schumpeter’s theory of the entrepreneur, Marshall’s partial price analysis and the graphical representation of supply and demand. We discuss these graphical representations and conclude that Mangoldt does not take the role of time into account. Investigates why Mangoldt’s contemporaries did not pay much attention to these theoretical developments and describes how Mangoldt’s most interesting mathematical theories were omitted in the posthumous editions of his principal work.