On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perelman, Michael wrote: > > The article seems to be based on Phil Mirowski's wonderful book, More > > Heat Than Light ... > > > Phil shows how the economists wrote to the leading physicists of the > > time congratulating themselves about how they made economic scientific. > > The physicists wrote back that the economists did not understand > > physics; that physics has conservation laws, which economics violates my > > assuming unlimited growth. > > FWIW, some mainstream types have argued vigorously against Phil's > theory. I don't know what their arguments are and can't defend them.
I liked Mirowski's book because it was extremely well-researched. He makes a very convincing case that the early utility theories directly and openly drew from conservation principles and generally by the energy metaphor. So far so good. The second part of his thesis is a bit harder to accept. He shows that since the 1870's the energy metaphor in physics has changed with relativity (to include mass) and again with quantum mechanics (to accomodate discretization) and still more with general relativity and particle physics. But economics still uses the 1870's version of the energy metaphor. My question is "so what?" There are lots of things wrong with utility theory etc (and Mirowski mentions many of them) but being based on an old energy concept is not it. Anyway here's one rebuttal/review of his book which specifically answers Mirowski's (quite enjoyable and probably justified) attack on Paul Samuelson. Hal R. Varian, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 595-596 -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
