- Original Message -
From: fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Example from my professional life: As is probably obvious, I'm not
an economist - I'm a sociologist who takes economics very seriously
and I sometimes use economic tools in my research. So I'm always
in a position of
John Hull wrote:
Example 3: Subjective Utility
Most of the utility 'functions' occurring in
neoclassical microeconomics...are not well defined--as
Henri Poincare pointed out to Leon Walras. In fact,
the only conditions required of them is that they be
twice differentiable, the first derivative
Please Remove
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, john hull quotes Mario Bunge:
In short, THE USE OF UTILITY FUNCTIONS IS OFTEN
MATHEMATICALLY SLOPPY AND EMPIRICALLY UNWARRANTED.
It is an interesting regularity that some non-economists -- particularly
philosophers and physicists, and Bunge is both -- seem to think even
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build their whole
careers by getting their names put on coauthored papers to which they have
not legitimately contributed.
Marc Poitras
Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
economics generally?
David Levenstam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
that the *content* of the papers
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ALL CAPS lines are my emphasis.
I think it is better to use other symbols, such as *caps*, since when they
get copied, one may want to revert to u/l.
NEO-AUSTRIAN
ECONOMICS, EVEN CLAIM THAT THEIR THEORIES ARE TRUE A
PRIORI.
This means a priori to
Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
economics generally?
David Levenstam
It's typical to say that bad science is X, and my political
opponents just happen to do X. IMO, it is
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
that the *content* of the papers is fraudulent.
Anton
In a message dated 8/14/02 1:47:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of
fabio guillermo rojas:
Similarly, I find that these articles that trash economics because it
is psuedoscientific do the same - they obsess over the wording (the
use of math) rather than think real hard about the intuitions behind
things. Of course, there is always bad research hiding behind
--- Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is better to use other symbols, such as
*caps*, since when they get copied, one may want to
revert to u/l.
Sorry. Yahoo email doesn't give me many options. I
was hesitant about yelling, which I guess is what all
caps is. I'll try
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given reasonable assumptions
(axioms), does that mean that economic findings are
valid without being 'scientific,' i.e. rigoriously
tested?
If the logic is valid and the premises true, then the conclusion is sound and
therefore fully scientific.
14 matches
Mail list logo
