Does this help any? From the General Theory (pp 297-98): "It is a great fault of symbolic pseudo-mathematical methods of formalising a system of economic analysis, such as we shall set down in section VI of this chapter, that they expressly assume strict independence between the factors involved and lose all their cogency and authority if this hypothesis is disallowed; whereas, in ordinary discourse, where we are not blindly manipulating but know all the time what we are doing and what the words mean, we can keep 'at the back of our heads' the necessary reserves and qualifications and the adjustments which we shall have to make later on, in a way in which we cannot keep complicated partial differentials 'at the back' of several pages of algebra which assume that they all vanish. Too large a proportion of recent 'mathematical' economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose4 sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols." In 1940 Keynes was greatly worried that his American disciplices "were more orthodox than the master," in the sense that they failed to keep the necessary reservations "at the back of their head." Larry Shute Thanks for your message at 07:06 AM 7/22/97 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your message was: >In a message dated 97-07-21 10:04:11 EDT, Anders writes: > >>At 07:35 PM 7/20/97 -0700, Maggie wrote: >>>Nope. This is why ( as I pointed out) other types of debate are more >>>It may not have been phrased exactly this way, but what I say in the rest >of >>>my initial message is that one of the primary feminist critiques is that >>>econometrics (models) are almost by definition inaccurate. In other words, >>>they are parsimonious to the point where they can not possibly reflect >>social >>>issues (power, gender, race, sexual preference, etc.). So even when power >>is >>>added to a model, the model inaccurately portrays the exercise of power >>>because the one dimensional nature of mathematics does not allow for the >>>variable degrees of the exercise of power. >> >>Is that really the result of mathematics, or is it the result of a model >>that starts with the assumption that we don't have to worry about power (or >>attempts to change the rules of the game)? If you had a model that did >>start by putting power at the center, why couldn't you use math to talk >>about variable degrees of power? >Weeeelllll, part of it is the assumptions on which the model is based--so, >frinstance, Posner's recent work which "proves" that white men should receive >a larger part of the medical research dollar because the loss of white men to >ill health or death costs more is an excellent example of assumptions >determining outcome. As long as we measure the value of life in terms of >documented income from the market place, and do not place a monetary value on >household labor, mainstream economists will always reach this conclusion. > ***However**** even if one incorporates truly progressive values into >econometric work--and I think that there is some really good work out there >(frinstance, Australlian economist Gillian Hewitson did an excellent rational >choice model for surrogate mothers) I question the ability of mathematics to >portray the complexities of social interactions. Does racism or sexism or >power vary with mathematical certitude even in exactly the same situations >over time? I really don't think so. > >> >>>Further, econometrics is only one >>>form of logic, generally associated with men, and its use as a legitimizing >>>force to the exclusion of all other types of logic (artistic, intuitive) is >>>in and of itself a form of bigotry. >> >>Two questions: >> >>-- Suppose econometrics gave us the answers we wanted. Would it be bigotry >>to say, that's what we're going to use to the exclusion of, say, artistic >>logic? >I'm not sure I understand the question--but--I wrote in answer to Jim Devine >that I am not completely convinced by this portion of the feminist argument. > I don't think there has been enough of a separation between econometrics as >a tool and the USE of that tool by the mainstream as a way of promoting all >forms of bigotry. > >> >>-- Are you arguing that econometrics doesn't involve intuitive and other >>forms of logic, or are you saying that when it's used as a legitimating >>force, it pretends that it doesn't involve intuition, etc.? The reason I >>ask is that I remember reading articles about the history of econometrics >>many moons ago that analyzed the shift in rhetoric, and they all argued >>that econometrics was an attempt to appopriate the images of "hardness" and >>"rigor" from physics while denying the role of intuition, etc. that physics >>takes for granted. >All science begins with intuition. However, econometrics simplifies this >intuition to a parsimonious skeleton and--at best--is useful as a compliment >to intuitive explanations. Further, I question the definition of intuition. > Depending on who you talk to, women intuitively put themselves into >subservient positions and blacks want to work part time and ... . How many >times have you (or I or anyone) heard that gender or racial roles are >natural--women are natural mothers? (To which I generally reply: if >motherhood is so natural then why are there so many battered children?) The >infamous "Bell Curve" argued that racial inferiority of intelligence was >'natural'. > >intuitively yours, maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
