Re: Re: Rigor mortis?

[Alan Cibils <abcibils@xxxxxxxxx>]

At  3/3/2002, you wrote:
> I have little faith that formal models clarify much or avoid
> misrepresentations
> of reality.  I have asked the list for examples of formal models that have
> taught them anything that they could not have learned by other means.  I think
> Peter Dorman may have been the only one who responded.
>
> Michael Perelman

I have problems with the way this issue is posed in the above paragraph.

1) Any explanation of an economic issue  can have "misrepresentations of
reality" and not "clarify much" regardless of the  method chosen (a formal
model, plain text, or whatever method one chooses).

2) For some, formal models may be an easier way to understand what an
economist is trying to say than plain words. This has to do with the way a
particular individual learns and with the ability of the one doing the
explaining, among other variables (so to speak!). For example, doing a
static CGE model helped me understand the inner workings of the
neoclassical framework a lot better than many critical texts. Not that the
texts themselves were bad, things "clicked" with the model in a way they
haden't before.

The problem I see with the (mainstream) economics profession---and I
suspect that this is what many people on this list rightly object to---is
the exaltation of mathematical formalism above all else. If formal models
were taken as just _one more_ tool in the economists' toolkit then we
probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Alan



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com