Rod Thomas’ comment on our paper, ‘The Problematic Nature and Consequences of the Effort to Force Keynes into the Conceptual Cul-de-sac of Walrasian Economics’, argues that it entails a crucial logical problem. He claims in particular that our use of Kuhnian concepts, and the concept of ‘incommensurability’ in particular, along with the traditional scientific definition of ‘rigour’ (which argues that theories should correspond to objective facts) is logically inconsistent.1¹ Thomas argues more specifically that Kuhn’s approach to the philosophy of science posits a ‘sociology of knowledge’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 3) characterised by ‘epistemological relativism’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 3), which ‘immunises’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 1) a paradigm, such as Walrasian General Equilibrium (WGE), from extra-paradigmatic criticism in general, and from criticism rooted in an empirical standard of validity and/or ‘rigour’ in particular. Thomas concludes by suggesting that our article ‘…is itself problematical in both nature and consequence’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 1) because it cannot ‘compare the merits of the supposedly “incommensurable” paradigms of Keynes and WGE, but also …declare Keynes’s paradigm as superior’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 4). The problem with our paper, in other words, is that it attempts to conduct ‘an inter-paradigmatic comparison within a strictly Kuhnian framework’ (Thomas, 2020, p. 4).

中文翻译：

---

对“凯恩斯，库恩和知识社会学：对佩尔内奇和沃吉克的评论”的回应

罗德·托马斯（Rod Thomas）在我们的论文“将凯恩斯逼入瓦尔拉斯经济学的概念死胡同的问题的性质和后果”上的评论指出，这牵涉到一个至关重要的逻辑问题。他声称特别是我们使用的库恩的概念，和“不可通约性”特别的理念，以“严谨”（其认为，理论应该与客观事实）的传统科学的定义是沿着逻辑inconsistent.1 ¹托马斯更具体地指出，库恩的科学哲学方法提出了一种以“认识论相对论”（托马斯，2020年，第3页）为特征的“知识社会学”（托马斯，2020年，第3页），该知识“免疫了”（托马斯）。 ，2020年，第1页）是范式，例如Walrasian一般均衡（WGE），通常来自范式外的批评，尤其是源于有效性和/或“严谨”的经验标准的批评。托马斯最后提出，我们的文章“……本质上和后果上都是有问题的”（Thomas，2020年，第1页），因为它不能“比较凯恩斯和WGE所谓的“无与伦比的”范式的优点，但也可以……声明。凯恩斯的范式是卓越的（Thomas，2020，p.4）。换句话说，我们的论文存在问题