Re: Mirowski and critiques

[ALUTZKER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

defending mirowski,
	provisionally dividing marginalism into 2 components:
the constrained optimization formalism and the interpretive
discouse overlaid upon the formalism, mirowski's work allows:

1) discussion of why constrained optimization seemed the appropriate
way to formally analyze THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM in the 1870s
2) an alternate evolution of formal analysis based on the formalism:
energy physics (mirowski's value added was in localizing the
physics inspiration in 1850s energy physics, as opposed to
general "Newton envy").  Why do conservation laws play such
a huge role in physics but none in econ?  what would the analagous
conservation laws be in econ?  what would the analagy to entropy
be?  and so on.  Basically, mirowski allows us to map from
physics to econ and free ride on the exploration of the properties
of the constrained optimization formalism done by physicists
(the interpretive frameworks may differ, but identical formal
assumptions should yield identical formal results in both disciplines;
the different evolutions of the formal apparatus is itself
of interest).  The potential intellectual returns here alone
seem staggering to me.  New questions are available that
simply could not be conceptualized before.  Conservation laws
as the underlying "enabling assumption" of any formalism,
and therefore the proper subject of debate between different
candidate paradigmatic formalisms seems new, true, and
a positive agenda.
3) the issues of time, uncertainty, and information, all of
great import to pkters, are highlighted by this mapping.
physics provides either new formalisms, already partially
explored, or philosophy of physics provides verbal discussions
of deep problems associated with the interpretations of
the formalisms (more free riding off the intellectual
investments of others, following Marx's rereading of
Hegel and Ricardo in light of each other).

That's preliminary and rushed, but gives the flavor of
my reasons for digging the work.  Methodologically,
I'm in favor of work that breaks down barriers to entry
between different research traditions and allows gains
from trade to occur.  Oh, dear, is this a Beckerist
defense of mirowski?
in ironic solidarity,
i remain,
confused but willing to read,
adam lutzker