From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Abstractions in the sciences (was Re: Rights for Rocks!)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:16:41 GMT

In article <1bn07tINNavn@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.150939.22099@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.  Physics has had great success using an abstracted
technique in its search for knowledge.  Physics is a low level
science.  At some level, the other sciences are built on top of
it.  Deciding whether the abstracted method is appropriate for
studying something is an important decision.  

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.
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.  This doesn't mean there should
be no study of the abstract relationships.  They may one day make
enough progress to be of practical value.  But this method
dominates the discipline to the virtual exclusion of other
techniques.  

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.

It may be that the results of the study that led to this years
Nobel Prize in economics may one day be compared with the great
experiments in physics that you described.  I would contend that
the relevance of this study to decisions our government makes
today is minimal, as is much of the current study of classical
economics.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment