From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Abstractions in the sciences (was Re: Rights for Rocks!)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 22:10:32 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct16.201641.24949@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>Dean, isn't it "obvious" that an object in motion tends to come to rest? 
>>Wasn't the observation that that wasn't, in fact, true unless there was
>>friction considered to be one of the greatest steps forward in physics?  Isn't
>>it "obvious" that you can't have a wave without a medium to propagate the wave? 
>>Isn't the Michelson-Morley experiment considered one of the milestones of
>>physics?  Why the hell do you demand that economics simply ASSUME that what is
>>"obvious" is true?  If physicists had adopted the attitude you seem to
>>advocate, we'd still be using Aristotle as the primary physics text. 
>>Demonstrating that one of the fundamental assumptions of economics does, in
>>fact, have a real basis in reality is not the trivial achievement you make it
>>out to be.
>
>What is appropriate for physics is not necessarily appropriate for
>economics.

So you're saying that we should simply assume that what appears obvious in
economics is actually true.  You've got to be kidding?  That's the most
incredibly stupid thing I've ever heard anybody (except a macroeconomist) say
about economics.

>What, specifically, is the goal of economics and economists?  If
>they want to determine monetary and value relationships in the absence
>of politics, human relationships, and so on for the purpose of 
>abstract knowledge for personal satisfaction, then that is fine.

They want to find out how the economy works (at least microeconomists do;
macroeconomists seem to want to get cushy government jobs where they can meddle
with things without any understanding of what they're meddling with.  Dean
seems very sympathetic toward the latter group, and appears to hold the former
in contempt).

>I would contend that if their goal is to study the workings of
>a real economy as it functions in the real world, then the
>current method is deeply flawed.

What do you mean by "the current method?"  It appears to me that you have
little or no knowledge of what "the current method is."

>There are hard sciences and there are soft sciences.  This may
>be a qualitatvie difference or it may be a relative difference in
>the long run, but in the short run the difference is crucial to
>whether the study has anything to offer the human race in policy
>decisions.  Soft sciences that attempt to be hard sciences before
>human perception and understanding are ready doom themselves to
>useless abstraction for the time being.  If someone wishes to
>study a soft science as a hard science with all the abstractions,
>thats fine.  No argument from me.  Knowledge for its own sake is
>worthwhile.  But they should understand that the applicability of
>that knowledge to real-world policy issues is at best questionable.

Er, Dean.  The prize was awarded, in part, for someone actually making sure
that some of the more fundamental abstractions (i.e., microeconomics) was
actually applicable to the real world.  Why do you object to this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.