 |
 |
---Chris Perley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Just a note on the parallels Steve Vernon made between evolutionary biology > and economics. It is a good comparison. The difference is characterised by > a vigorous debate within the biological sciences regarding evolution - > witness Steven Jay Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Lewontin. There is an active > philosophical inquiry into the meaning and extension of evolution. In that No way. Sorry, I have read Gould and Eldridge and I ain't gonna buy this one cause it stinks. Gould and Eldridge both accept the basic concept that man has evolved. They do NOT question this basic tenet! In fact, I would say the "debate" is very similar to that which is going on with the axioms of choice under uncertainty that I have mentioned before. (Although there really isn't much debate in economics since everyone knows there is a problem.) Or as Chris says a discussion on the auxillary tenets of the theory and not a questioning of the "Big One" nobody is talking about junking evolution. C'mon, I know there are biologists on the lists what other alternatives to evolution are there? Is intelligent design the only one? > discipline, inquiry has replaced certainty (which they haven't had since the > 18th century when God's creation was the unquestioned authority), and the You talk to the scientist for each side of the debate and they sound pretty certain their view is correct. C'mon Chris, whats wrong, afraid to label biologists as fundamentalist zealots out to destroy the world too? > more the real world connections are examined the more questions arise - > witness a recent New Scientist article (sorry no ref) looking at some > evolutionary traits that fit more closely to Lamarkanism than Darwinism. > This was noted in the article as an anomaly that raised questions. > > I cannot say there is much philosophy of economics that parallels it, > certainly not into the meaning and application of the rational economic man > axiom - with the exception of the ecological economics movement through such There is the work of Arjo Klamer for one. He questions the axioms. I believe Amartya Sen has also done some work in this area. Also here is something from a paper written by Hal Varian (Varian in case you are unaware is a "Big Gun" in economics): "Neoclassical economic theory is under attack. Critics argue that it is too esoteric and too mathematical. According to these critics neoclassical economic theory should pay more attention to psychology, history, sociology, biology, and policy and less attention to mathematics, physics, and rigor. It should be more dynamic, more empirical and more sensitive to institutional structure. And so on. Many of these criticisms are valid---everyone would like to have an economic theory of institutions and a better understanding of economic dynamics." --From "What Use is Economic Theory", a pdf version of the paper can be found at http://wueconb.wustl.edu/eprints/mhet/papers/9401/9401001.abs You yourself have said that there are some that do question the axioms. I am begining to think you just have it in for economics and let the other "hard" sciences have a free pass. > people as Daly, Cobb, Constanza and Henderson. But they represent a > paradigm shift that is considered "dangerous" by some who adhere to the > orthodoxy. [snip] Steve _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%