I just checked out *More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics: Physics as Nature�s Economics*, also by Philip Mirowski.
Here are a couple of quotes from the introduction that I found interesting: �One rapidly discovers that the resemblances of the theories [of physics and economics] are uncanny, and one reason they are uncanny is because the progenitors of neoclassical economic theory boldly copied the reigning physical theories in the 1870s. ...Neoclassicals did not imitate physics in a desultory or superficial manner; no they copied their models mostly term for term and symbol for symbol, and said so. �Neoclassical economics made savvy use of the resonances between body, motion, and values by engaging in a brazen daylight robbery: The Marginalists appropriated the mathematical formalisms of mid-nineteenth century energy physics, ..., made them their own by changing the labels on the variables, and then trumpeted the triumph of a truly �scientific economics.� Utility became the analogue of potential energy; and the Marginalist Revolutionaries marched off to do battle with classical, Historicist, and Marxian economists. Unfortunately, there was one little oversight: The neoclassicals had neglected to appropriate the most important part of the formalism, ... namely, the conservation of energy.� (pp 3 & 9) >From skimming a couple of later chapters, it seems Mirowski also finds a close relationship with later 20th century economics and 19th century physics. (He notes that on the surface Samuelson draws an analogous relationship between modern physics and modern economics, but when Mirowski digs deeper, he finds it to be simply a variation of 19th century physics in disguise.) He seems to credit/blame Samuelson for much of the 20th century development � at least that�s what I gathered from reading a few pages here and there. Seth Giertz --- "Ole J. Rogeberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can give you a completely opposite reference :-) > > Philip Mirowski, in the Cambridge Journal of > Economics, nr. 8, 1984, pp. > 361-379 has an article "Physics and the marginalist > revolution," where he > argues that the similarities between the physics of > the 1800s and the > economics of the 20th century results from > economists taking the > mathematical models then in vogue and reinterpreting > them in economic > terms. "Neoclassical economics is bowdlerised > nineteenth century physics." > The second part of his argument is that this is not > reasonable. > > The article was fun, whatever one may think of the > conclusions. Apparently, > this is a major theme of Mirowski. I gather that > he's written on this > subject elsewhere too. And been strongly criticised > by others, of course. > > Ole > > At 09:25 11.02.2002 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >I once heard about a paper by a physcist who > >juxtaposed the mathematical assumptions in > economics > >with the mathematical assumptions in physics. > >Evidently the author found the assumptions in > >economics to be quite reasonable. I've never been > >able to locate it. Is anybody familiar with such a > >work, or anything similar? > > > >Curiously, > >jsh > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! > >http://greetings.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
