Re: Mirowski and critiques

[enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Nilsson)]

What alternative theory has Mirowski offered?  Does his work do more than
make gestures toward what this alternative theory might be?  (It is said he
has done preliminary work on these things but what exactly has he
accomplished that is concrete?)

These are a true question as I am not as knowledgeable of his work as I
should be.

I'm not convinced of the claim that "alternative maths yield truly
alternative theories."  As I read the pkt discussion about game theory, no
one provided any justification for the claim that game theory (a new math)
made much of a real difference to mainstream theory.  I tend to believe that
a new math is neither necessary nor sufficient for creating a new theory of
the economy.  Though a new theory might use a new math, this need not be.

I must, in particular, question the claim that "if you want a new
institutional economics, you need a mathematics of networks."  What support
is there for this claim?  This echos a similar claim, "I need game theory."

As regards, "I believe this spares me a great deal of trouble trying to
contort what I believe to be interesting and important work in an effort to
"fit in.""  Does this imply that you think that others less "liberated" (in
the way you see yourself and Mirowski as being liberated) are contorting
what they believe in just to fit in?  I assume you do not intend to imply this.

I also assume that you are not lumping those who disagree with you (and who
have different research agendas)into the trash heap along with "the barren
renditions of Hansen and Hicks."

I assume the above are all rhetorical flourishes.

I can see that you might find that, for you, these new maths might perform
an important function.  Are your saying that everyone else should follow
your lead?


Eric Nilsson
Department of Economics
California State University, San Bernardino
enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
909-880-5564