“but I have to admit that I have a general distrust of ambitious, overarching
attempts to capture a whole socioeconomic system in a few grand
generalizations.” Sounds like popper by Solow.
“the economics profession was moving in a direction--rigorous theory couched in
mathematical terms--that he had always professed to admire but simply could not
practice himself.” Sounds as if we manage to put a few equations in, we have
the right to explain the world with overarching generlisations completely
asocial and ahistorical that taken apart do not mean a thing by Solow.
The most perforated point in this article is the point (see above) where Solow
says he distrusts big theory and conjunctionally economic theory was moving
towards rigorous theory by adopting mathematics. Isn't there an obvious
contradiction here: on one side we have his distrust of big theory and on the
other the theory he likes, I assume it is big and (size matters I presume), is
adopting a branch of logic so narrow like math to make a fit to measure theory,
which is aimed at explaining the pillars of life. Solow uses the word big six
times could this be telling of something he lacks.
This is not rigour, it is ideological hate for the working class spelled out by
highly trumpeted buffoons called academics. it is perfunctory in every detail.
And if science or social science was as it is in the service of power.... In
this stage of decay of capitalism this is exemplary...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/
