3 ms·
We don’t use mathematical models because they are correct. We use them because they are more concretely measurable, and thus falsifiable. Without them, it bec
by SantalBlush 6y ago
We don’t use mathematical models because they are correct. We use them because they are more concretely measurable, and thus falsifiable. Without them, it becomes too easy to make vague statements about economics then make ad hoc explanations for why you were right. This is what so-called economists like Sowell do.
>A mathematics-first approach encourages oversimplified assumptions.
Wrong. It makes the oversimplified assumptions more clearly identifiable, instead of concealing them in prose which is not measurable. This is why they are superior, because we can clearly identify why they are wrong, and by how much. This is how science and the positivist framework improve our knowledge.
- ramblerman 6y agoPerhaps, but in physics the maths and experiments run very close. In fields like economics it's easier to make a grandiose and "falsifiable" piece of math that is absolutely correct but doesn't actually reflect anything real. Or more often reflects a tiny part of a first order effect. Yet people get blinded because the math is right.
- SantalBlush 6y agoNobody is "blinded because the math is right". You're using the same sort of argumentation that is used in all of the pseudo sciences. If you know of a way to improve upon the existing methodologies, then show it to us, and be precise. Then you will have an argument that deserves to be engaged with. Ambiguous claims that the math "doesn't actually reflect anything real" sound intelligent, but really aren't saying much at all.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]