tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post2473599172521531714..comments2022-05-16T22:08:49.736-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Boylan and O’Gorman’s “Kaldor on Debreu: The Critique of General Equilibrium Reconsidered”LKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51998220324580150732016-06-14T16:08:58.665-07:002016-06-14T16:08:58.665-07:00If I may ask, what is your stance on mathematical ...If I may ask, what is your stance on mathematical realism?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493413558707790923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12533749251117848562016-06-13T18:20:02.830-07:002016-06-13T18:20:02.830-07:00Nice article.
As someone with applied mathematica...Nice article.<br /><br />As someone with applied mathematical training, I have no problems with viewing mathematical models as being idealised entities independent of the real world. The question is whether the models have any predictive value (which is tied to the question of falsifiability) when applied to a real world system.<br /><br />In practice, mainstream macro is based on non-measured quantities that are only estimated by using models that assume that the postulated economic dynamics are correct (e.g., a Kalman filter). The end result is that mainstream theory will be able to "explain" any observed economic trajectory.<br /><br />The upshot is that mainstream theory never need change; it just adds epicycles in order to keep the publication mill going. This is why things are not any different today, nor is there any plausible hope for internal reform.<br />Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86926993218741368082016-06-13T18:05:00.750-07:002016-06-13T18:05:00.750-07:00These quotes indicate that Boylan & O’Gorman d...These quotes indicate that Boylan & O’Gorman don't really understand what they are talking about - the quote, especially after "more precisely" is basically PoMo of the type ridiculed by Gross & Levitt, or Bricmont & Sokal - and I much more sympathetic & generous to the targets of those four authors' critiques than they are. Though it is a slander to both sides, neither side is quite that bad or always that bad - pomo word salad is not the best weapon to denounce neoclassical math salad.<br /><br />Wikipedia on <a rel="nofollow">Constructive Analysis</a> in particular, the intermediate value theorem is very helpful. Walk before running. A non-constructive existence proof - like that of the intermediate value theorem is just that. What it proves to exist should be, probably will be relevant in some way to the real world object of the theory <b>if</b> the assumptions of the theory are. Ungarbage in, ungarbage out. The real problem is finding / constructing in some sense (something like) what exists in the weak, classical "Cantorian" sense. Nobody sensible nowadays says such existence is meaningless. <br /><br />Criticisms of Hilbert & Bourbaki & formalism are nearly as badly informed and unhelpful. Hilbert's philosophical views were far deeper and superior to the usual caricature which was probably due to E. T. Bell putting words into his mouth. But this is because most of what is written on the philosophy of mathematics is just (now highly outdated) chattering (as is most on the philosophy of X that disparages or divorces itself from general philosophy, and the philosophical tradition - which is pretty much most of 20th century philosophy).<br /><br />James Franklin's <i>Aristotelian Philosophy of Mathematics</i> book is surely an exception to the snark above - but I haven't had the time to look at it.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58207701527793400532016-06-12T22:37:57.881-07:002016-06-12T22:37:57.881-07:00This is all very true stuff. Unfortunately PKEs fa...This is all very true stuff. Unfortunately PKEs fall into the same trap of confusing mathematics with reality and have a dreadful tendency to curve fit aggregation formula to empirical data that comes from a system operating under the rules of neoliberalism.<br /><br />So they still have no idea about how aggregation happens, nor have they any real idea at the macro level how changing the rules away from neoliberalism will alter the way the system responds at either the individual or aggregate level.<br /><br />Simplistic mathematical models, even ones with system dynamics in them like the ones used by Steve Keen, are just not going to be enough to describe human systems. NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57031795791232296652016-06-12T14:32:16.508-07:002016-06-12T14:32:16.508-07:00There is an extensive critique of 'neoclassica...There is an extensive critique of 'neoclassical' economics in the prologue to R. A. Werners book 'New Paradigm in Macroeconoics'Postkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747509012748106827noreply@blogger.com