Re: Mirowski and critiques

[ALUTZKER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

responding to HG from 7:30 this morning:
the proposed interpretation is a map between potential and
kinetic energy (the sum of which is conserved; pre-entropy)
and utility and income.  i agree economists don't think of
this sum as being conserved.  why not?  isn't it implicit
in the formalism?  why was the same math interpreted different
ways in different disciplines?  Why did the research programs
diverge?

At the very least, this should make us think about the distinction
between the formal models and the interpretations we drape upon
them.  I would take a stronger line and argue that mathematical
models are complicated to interpret and often implicitly commit
us to claims that we are not aware we are making (like hidden
conservation laws in econ).

One last claim: gotta disagree with the distiction between
current theoretical work in a discipline and historical and
philosophical discussions of that work.  How else can one
understand and interpret current research and debates except
historically?  Graduate training in macro made no sense at all -
we just compared the properties of highly stylzed models that
fell onto the blackboard from heaven.  Only exposure to
the history of the debates offered any handle to understanding
the "parables" offered.  I know it may sound "shockingly
Hegelian" but i don't think the distinction can be
coherently drawn.

adam