Faustine wrote:
>Quoting Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Richard Fiero wrote:
> >
> > > James A. Donald wrote:
> > > > . . .
> > > >You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not
> > > >academically respectable. But much of it, most famously that by
> > David
> > > >Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain
> > topics, it
> > > >is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer.
> > >
> > > Oh, what science is that? Economics is not a science.
>
>What about econometrics? It seems to belong in the same
>conceptual category as
>mathematics, statistics, operations research, etc. I dont
>think econometricians
>would generally appreciate being called softies...
>
>I think any economic theory worth its salt requires good data
>obtained by some
>kind of scientific methodology. Some economic theories are
>more scientific than
>others, it all depends on the approach.
>
>Kind of reminds me of this nuclear physicist I knew who heaped scorn on
>economics as 'soft' every chance he got. But then, he also had reservations
>about including the life sciences (like biology) as 'hard
>science' i.e, 'real'
>science. And heaven help the person who got him started on psychology and
>sociology. I guess some people are just more hard core than others!
>
>
>~Faustine.
>. . .
Agreed. There are some nested quotes above. I'd never attempt
to criticize for being "unscientific." My response was to James
A. Donald's troll which stated that one kind of economics was
more scientific than another. Now James A. Donald can talk
circles around me any day and has a long and exemplary history
which I'll not attempt to summarize here.
With respect to measuring things, econometricians do measure
things, lots of things. Is what is being measured even
interesting? Now for the interesting part-- what is David
Friedman doing and why does what he is doing resonate here? You can read him at
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
or buy his books. It seems to me he is doing game theory,
auction markets and jurisprudence. The foundations of the most
successful economies on the planet and studies which are
sanctioned in scientific circles, CalTech for one. However, I
read Marx, Keynes and Hayek. Those, for example, who state that
California power deregulation has failed because it is not
deregulated enough are theologians in my view. I also note that
the supply/demand graph on page three of any Econ 101 text has
really dark, bold lines because it's a total fiction and has no
basis other than being a very useful fiction.
About Faustine's pal who scorns soft sciences: it's what you
get for hanging out with libertarians.
