Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:21:41.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Model hagiography: A reply to Johnson and Munger on probability, philosophy and transcendental argumentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2023

Jon Roffe
Jon Roffe*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Jon Roffe, Department of Philosophy, School of the Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales, NSW 2010, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In his review of my recent book, Abstract Market Theory, Johnson mistakes my investigation into the conditions and limits of probabilistic reasoning as a rejection of its sense and utility. The same misunderstanding also appears in a review by Munger published recently. In both cases this leads to a skewed and reductive understanding of my reconception of the relationship between price and value. In this response, I present an outline of the philosophical goals of Abstract Market Theory. My intent is not just to show that these reviews are incorrect in their presentation of my argument, but to also indicate why a philosophical perspective remains indispensable for our understanding of the market.

Keywords

Abstract market theorypossibilityphilosophytranscendental illusion
Type
Review forum
Information
Finance and Society , Volume 2 , Issue 2: Art and finance , 2016 , pp. 217 - 224
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits noncommercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© 2016 The Author(s)

References

Ayache, E. (2010) The Blank Swan: The End of Probability. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ayache, E. (2015) The Medium of Contingency: An Inverse View of the Market. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergson, H. (2002) The possible and the real. In Ansell-Pearson, K. and Mullarkey, J. (eds.) Bergson: Key Writings. London: Continuum, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, T. (2016) The necessity of multi-disciplinary scholarship for finance: On Ayache and Roffe. Finance and Society, 2(2): 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. (2014). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
Laplace, P-S. (1902) A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, trans. F. Truscott and F. Emory. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Meillassoux, Q. (2008) After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, trans. R. Brassier. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, M. (2016) Review of Abstract Market Theory. Notre Dame Philosophical Review. Available at: <https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/68800-abstract-market-theory/>. Accessed 14 October 2016..+Accessed+14+October+2016.>Google Scholar
Roffe, J. (2012) Time and ground: A critique of Meillassoux's speculative realism. Angelaki, 17(1): 5767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roffe, J. (2015) Abstract Market Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar