This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader
may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as
text. To process the remainder, you will need to use a Mime
compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details.
--IMA.Boundary.207991408
Laura Forgette writes:
You have asked a very pertinent question that I
myself have tried to answer...unfortunately resulting
in increasing pessimism...I believe that mathematical
gymnastics has become *so* much more highly valued when
compared to the knowledge of economic history and theory
that we are turning out idiot savants...idiots in economics
with a gift for mathematical models.
I think that's an apt analogy, especially since the textbook image
of people in economics ("homo economicus") is autistic, indeed an
idiot savant (now called "autistic savant" in the lit), what
Veblen termed a lightning calculator. Are the economists
projecting themselves onto the subject they're "studying"?
She continues:
I have great respect for
economists such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who resigned from
the American Economic Association when this abuse of mathematics
reached its peak. Mancor Olson, in his book,"The Rise and
Decline of Nations" said it best..."The range of statistical
techniques available to the modern econometrician is so wide
that the zealous advocate can often "torture the data until it
confesses."
I'm sure that bill mitchell will say that "don't attack the tool,
attack how its used" in reply. The same conclusion applies to
mathematical economics: mathematics is a means to an end, but for
economists it's become an end in itself, with the original end
(understanding the economy) forgotten.
I think the big problem is the economics hierarchy: the use of
math (whether in mathecon or 'metrics) impresses the higher-ups,
especially those who got to be higher up before math was required
as much as it is today. Part of the problem is that it's very
hard to judge the quality of the work that an academic does. We
can't be paid piece rates, after all. Teaching evaluations are
poor, as are peer evaluations of research. A lot of it is totally
subjective and reflects in-group politics. Another problem is the
mystical aura that math has had since Pythagoras' day (as Allan
Freeman points out). Mathematical models are idealist (in the
philosophical sense) and academics typically deal with ideals much
better than reality.
By the way, Laura, you must get even more flack about your last
name than I get about mine. I'm really lucky I don't have your
last name, since I'm the classic absent-minded prof.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
--IMA.Boundary.207991408--
