3 ms·
Indeed. And it is a good thing in my layman's point of view because we better explain things in a simpler way and reach conclusions with math only if it is real
by henvic 8y ago
Indeed. And it is a good thing in my layman's point of view because we better explain things in a simpler way and reach conclusions with math only if it is really required. It's like qualitative vs. quantitative.
That said, no one would judge you for doing math. However, the important pieces (axioms) don't require it.
Lack of math doesn't mean anything bad. See Frédéric Bastiat and Gustave de Molinari. Both are amazing and no math required :)
- claudiawerner 8y agoOn that note, we shouldn't forget Ricardo and Marx either.
- feanaro 8y agoEverything boils down to mathematics one way or another, even logic. The trouble with praxeology is not the lack of math, though; it is the notion that results need not be validated empirically because they're based on logic. However, your assumptions (i.e. axioms) need not hold in nature and any number of mistakes could had been made in the reasoning process. This is why being based on logic does not make a model magically free of errors.