On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, William Dickens wrote:
> don't fit easily into Kuhn's categories. We're in the same situation > as meteorology (only worse because our subjects have minds of their > own). We know that weather systems are chaotic and therefore > unpredictable beyond very limited time frames. Same for economics. I'm actually not a Kuhnian on these issues, but I am trying to see how far Kuhn's theory goes in accurately describing economic research. Is it really true that there aren't reigning paradigms in meteorology? I should note that experimental econ seems to be developing in a very Kuhnian fashion. > the hallmark of modern physics. Sure there are physical problems where > chaos and complexity cause the same sorts of problems that economists > have dealing with the economy, but they aren't at the core of the > discipline the way they are in economics. Thus I think that a lot of Some core parts of physics deal with complexity - how about statistical mechanics? Is there a macro counterpart to statistical mechanics? > Finally, You and Alex both seem to want to classify the state of > modern macro as normal science. Personally, I think that the > differences between the different approaches within macro are much > more profound than either of you apparently do. Although everybody Is the difference between monetarists and post-Keynesians smaller than between post-Keynseians and Austrians? Austrians don't even accept equilibira theory as a starting point of economic analysis. Fabio
