ABSTRACT
From the standpoint of logic, it would seem to many of us that there is only one form of ‘logically compelling’ criticism-namely the demonstration that the argument being criticized leads to a contradiction and thus is logically invalid. Note that this was not the basis of my argument in my 1981 article. My article was about arguments about the neoclassical maximization hypothesis that arise after ‘one has established its logical validity’. That is, the maximization hypothesis, like any hypothesis, asserts that if certain prior conditions are met then necessarily particular subsequent conditions will be met. In short, if the prior conditions are all true then the subsequent conditions will also be true. Logical validity concerns the term ‘necessarily’, and thus if logical validity has been established the hypothesis can only fail to explain the truth of the subsequent condition because one or more of the prior conditions cannot be or are not met. The question of logical validity is about the possibility of the hypothesis being employed in a successful explanation and the question of meeting prior conditions is about the empirical truth of an explanation based on the hypothesis.
