A Study of Post Keynesian Attempts at Hiding Townshend’s Main Question to Keynes in His November 1938 Letter and Keynes’s Answer
Abstract
Keynes’s letter of December 7th, 1938, provided a direct answer to Townshend, who asked Keynes the following extremely important question in his letter of November 25th:
“This is the nearest I can get to an analysis of the part played by the factor of confidence in the rationale of interest. I believe that its further logical analysis at a deeper level of generalization is connected with the part played by the weight of evidence in your theory of probability, but I cannot see just how…..” (Keynes 1979, 292; italics added).
Now Townshend ‘s question actually is “Where in your A Treatise on Probability is your analysis supporting the connection between confidence in the GT and the weight of evidence?”
Keynes’s response was direct and straightforward:
“As regards my remarks in my General Theory, have you taken account of what I say on page 240, as well as what I say at page 148, which is the passage I think you previously quoted…”. (Keynes 1979; italics added).
The clue, given here by Keynes to Townshend, is to p.240 of the General Theory; however, it relates directly, as we will see, to Keynes’s chapter XXVI of the A Treatise on Probability. This paper will trace out how Keynes provided Townshend with the clues needed to recognize Keynes’s modeling of the conventional coefficient in chapter XXVI; however, Townshend gave up and failed to take this last step.
References
[2] Arthmar, Rogério and Brady, Michael Emmett. (2018). Boole, Ramsey and the Keynes-Townshend exchanges on subjective probability. Journal of Economic Thought and Policy, 2: 55-74. DOI:10.3280/SPE2018-002003
[3] Bateman, B. (1996). Keynes's Uncertain Revolution. Michigan; University of Michigan Press. (September).
[4] Boole, George. (1854). The Laws of Thought, Dover; New York.
[5] Boumans, Marcel. (2019). Econometrics: the Keynes–Tinbergen controversy. In The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes, edited by Robert W. Dimand and Harald Hagemann. London; Edward Elgar. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788118569.00055
[6] Brady, Michael Emmett & Rogério Arthmar. (2012). Keynes, Boole and the interval approach to probability. History of Economic Ideas, 20(3): 65-84. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23723682
[7] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2004a). J. M. Keynes’ Theory of Decision Making, Induction, and Analogy. The Role of Interval Valued Probability in His Approach. Xlibris Corporation. (Pennsylvania; Philadelphia). ISBN 13: 9781413472042.
[8] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2004b). Essays on John Maynard Keynes and …. Xlibris Corporation. (Pennsylvania; Philadelphia). ISBN-13:9781413449594.
[9] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2012). John Maynard Keynes’s Upper and Lower Valued Probabilities: A Study of How Statisticians, Philosophers, Logicians, Historians, and Economists Failed to Comprehend Keynes’s Breakthrough Application of G. Boole’s Interval Approach to Probability in the 20th Century (January 30, 2012). Also, in International Journal of Applied Economics and Econometrics, 21, 2013, (2): 254-272. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1996129 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1996129
[10] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2017). An Analysis of Edwin B. Wilson's Secret, Second Review of the 'A Treatise on Probability' in 1934: How It Demonstrated That Keynes's Theory of Probability Was an Interval Valued Approach to Probability and Not an Ordinal Theory (January 24). Also, In Scholedge International Journal of Business & Governance, 3(8) (2016): 110-121. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2905482 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2905482.
[11] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2022). D E Watt’s Reply to Ramsey in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science in 1989 is defective. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Field(s), Vol. 13, 2(26) (Winter): 09-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v13.2(26).01
[12] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2023a). I J GOOD’S CLAIM, THAT KEYNES’S EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT OF THE ARGUMENT, V, A LOGICAL RELATION, IS A NUMBER, IS FALSE. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Field(s), Vol.14, 1(27) (Summer): 5-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v14.1(27).01
[13] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2023b). Boole, not Keynes, presented the first logical theory of probability in history. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Field(s), Vol.14, 2(28) (Winter): 288-294. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v14.2(28).09
[14] Brady, Michael Emmett. (2024). Opinion about the Liquidity Preference Theory Discussions concerning weight and risk in the Townshend-Keynes letters of November-December 1938. Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Field(s), Vol.15, 1(29) (Summer): 45-53. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.1(29).05
[15] Feduzi, A. (2007). On the relationship between Keynes’s conception of evidential weight and the Ellsberg paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28: 545–565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.005
[16] Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Macmillan, London.
[17] Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Halstad Press.
[18] Keynes, J.M., 1979. The general theory and after. A supplement. The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. XXIX, edited by D.E. Moggridge. London: Macmillan.
[19] Runde, J. (1990). Keynesian Uncertainty and the Weight of Arguments. Economics and Philosophy, 6 (2): 275-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100001255
[20] Skidelsky, Robert. (1992). John Maynard Keynes: Volume 2: The Economist as Savior, 1920-1937. Penguin Books, 1995. ISBN-13 978-0713991109
[21] Zappia, Carlo. (2015). Keynes on probability and decision: evidence from the correspondence with Hugh Townshend. History of Economic Ideas, 23 (2): 145-164. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43924238
[22] Zappia, Carlo. (2016). Whither Keynesian probability? Impolite techniques for decision-making. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23(5): 835-862. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2015.1068349
Non-Exclusive License under Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC BY 4.0):
This ‘Article’ is distributed under the terms of the license CC-BY 4.0., which lets others distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon this article, even commercially, as long as they credit this article for the original creation. ASERS Publishing will be acknowledged as the first publisher of the Article and a link to the appropriate bibliographic citation (authors, article title, volume issue, page numbers, DOI, and the link to the Published Article on ASERS Publishing’ Platform) must be maintained.