TY - JOUR
T1 - The Malthus-Ricardo correspondence
T2 - Sequential structure, argumentative patterns, and rationality
AU - Dascal, Marcelo
AU - Cremaschi, Sergio
PY - 1999/9
Y1 - 1999/9
N2 - Although the controversy between Malthus and Ricardo has long been considered to be an important source for the history of economic thought, it has hardly been the object of a careful study qua controversy, i.e. as a polemical dialogical exchange. We have undertaken to fill this gap, within the framework of a more ambitious project that places controversies at the center of an account of the history of ideas, in science and elsewhere. It is our contention that the dialogical co-text is essential for reconstructing the meaning and the evolution of science. In the present paper we try to substantiate this contention by means of a pragma-rhetorical study of this particular controversy. First, we reconstruct, through an analysis of a chunk of the correspondence, a micro-level of specific moves and countermoves which constitute a sequential structure within which also meta-scientific and meta-controversial considerations play a role. We then move to a macro-level of analysis, looking for recurrent patterns of argumentation. Finally, we draw epistemological conclusions on the nature of rationality and progress as manifested in actual scientific controversies.
AB - Although the controversy between Malthus and Ricardo has long been considered to be an important source for the history of economic thought, it has hardly been the object of a careful study qua controversy, i.e. as a polemical dialogical exchange. We have undertaken to fill this gap, within the framework of a more ambitious project that places controversies at the center of an account of the history of ideas, in science and elsewhere. It is our contention that the dialogical co-text is essential for reconstructing the meaning and the evolution of science. In the present paper we try to substantiate this contention by means of a pragma-rhetorical study of this particular controversy. First, we reconstruct, through an analysis of a chunk of the correspondence, a micro-level of specific moves and countermoves which constitute a sequential structure within which also meta-scientific and meta-controversial considerations play a role. We then move to a macro-level of analysis, looking for recurrent patterns of argumentation. Finally, we draw epistemological conclusions on the nature of rationality and progress as manifested in actual scientific controversies.
KW - Argumentation
KW - Controversy
KW - Dialectics
KW - Dialogue
KW - History of economics
KW - Pragma-rhetorical analysis
KW - Rationality
KW - Scientific correspondence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033196057&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00026-0
DO - 10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00026-0
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:0033196057
SN - 0378-2166
VL - 31
SP - 1129
EP - 1172
JO - Journal of Pragmatics
JF - Journal of Pragmatics
IS - 9
ER -