Positivism is essentially an interpretation of the methodology of physics ballooned into a general theory of knowledge for all fields. Because of the barrenness of the mathematical symbols, such a course in economics would be likely to lead to grave errors. FULL ARTICLE by Murray Rothbard
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10567/a-note-on-mathematical-economics/
A Note On Mathematical Economics
Previous post: Does Loose Monetary Policy Cause Economic Growth?
Next post: The 19th-Century Bernanke
{ 107 comments }
← Previous Comments
poptech wrote:
“I am not using the math/science definition of “prove” but the literary one.”
Ah. I was trying to be precise.
“To be able to model and attempt to predict macro economics, would require reading everyone’s mind in real time. This is an impossibility and thus macro economic quantitative prediction is impossible.”
If your first sentence above were correct, then I would agree with your conclusion. But I don’t agree with your first sentence. We’ve been over this already in this thread, so I won’t belabor the point.
At any rate, let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree with your conclusion above. Then even if a macro-economic computer model were written with the input of a computer scientist well-versed in computer numerical analysis, the model would still fail miserably. So, computer illiteracy would not be not the problem.
It is not about who is writing it (this is a separate discussion) but rather understanding the limitations of what is written. A true computer scientist/engineer understands these limitations and would not consider macro economic modeling anything more than a theoretical exercise. Computer literacy is not about coding accuracy but understanding computer systems. Many people can write code, it does not mean they have an in-depth understanding of what a computer is and how it functions. Many people can use computers it does not mean they have an in-depth understanding of what a computer is and how it functions. Computer Scientists/Engineers understand the practical applications of computers and their limitations.
Poptech wrote:
“A true computer scientist/engineer understands these limitations and would not consider macro economic modeling anything more than a theoretical exercise.”
I still disagree. For scientific/engineering purposes, a computer is just a tool for performing numerical analysis; for doing math. If the programmer understands how to make the computer do the math required by a model to the required degree of accuracy, then he is computer literate. This does not mean that the model will work as intended. That is outside the scope of computer science, and is not the fault of the computer literate programmer.
Getting code to compile and run does not make you computer literate. You do not have the full understanding of how a computer works. This is the fallacy of many scientists and engineers. It is the most common fallacy. They frequently feel they are computer literate yet have no remote idea of computing. Nor are they programmers either. The code they create is is buggy crap 9 out of 10 times.
Computer illiteracy is at the root of all people who believe in the validity of economic modeling.
“This does not mean that the model will work as intended.”
Models always work how they are programmed, which is based on the subjective opinions of the one creating them. If I want X result, I can always make it happen in virtual reality but it is meaningless except for my ego.
Russ, I don’t have it in me to do any more philosophy of science thinking for a while. But I enjoyed our exchange. Feel free to shoot me an email, so we can correspond again sometime.
rafaeljosephgarcia (at) gmail (dot) com
Same for the rest of you: buzungulous, mpolzkill, martin, newson, etc. Thanks for your comments and corrections, as well.
Thanks Rafael, take care, always a pleasure reading your stuff.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.