There is nothing wrong with mathematics per se. There is nothing wrong with applying mathematics to economics. What is, however, totally wrong, are the simplistic beliefs that:
• “math is the only valid tool”
• “math is always and everywhere self-evidently applicable”
• “math is all that really counts”
• “if it’s not in math, it’s not really economics”
• “almost everything can be adequately understood and analyzed with math”
Source: http://www.alexsarchives.org
Neo-classical economic theory today is in the story-telling business whereby economic theorists create mathematical make-believe analogue models of the target system – usually conceived as the real economic system. This mathematical modelling activity is considered useful and essential. Since fully-fledged experiments on a societal scale as a rule are prohibitively expensive, ethically indefensible or unmanageable, economic theorists have to substitute experimenting with something else. To understand and explain relations between different entities in the real economy the predominant strategy is to build mathematical models and make things happen, rather than engineering things happening in real economies.
Without strong evidence, all kinds of absurd claims and nonsense may pretend to be science. There is need to demand more of a justification when it comes to the main postulates on which mainstream economics is founded. If one proposes ‘efficient markets’ or ‘rational expectations’ one also has to support their underlying assumptions. As a rule none is given, which makes it rather puzzling how things like ‘efficient markets’ and ‘rational expectations’ have become the standard modelling assumption made in much of modern macroeconomics. The reason for this sad state of ‘modern’ economics is that economists often mistake mathematical beauty for truth.
If you were to attend an undergraduate course in economics, top universities will demand A level in mathematics as an entry requirement. From years 1 to 3 (or 4) in university, mathematical modelling and equations have become the central core, as if economics is a “science” like physics. Economics has been and will also be an explanation of behavioural patterns of human beings in a geographical area. It can seldom be generalised to reflect some global fundamental truths like gravity or particle physics. The sooner economists realise their limitations, the better the modelling outcomes. Otherwise it is pure mathematical masturbation.
Reference:
Economics — confusing mathematical masturbation with intercourse between research and reality, Lars P. Syll, 7 Mar, 2017 (https://larspsyll.wordpress.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment