Re: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 12

["Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>]

Harry:

 

Newton's Orbital Mechanics and Modern Quantum Mechanics exemplify scientific "predictive models" that, as a practical matter, are unsurpassed in their respective fields.

 

The question then is:

 

How can that be so if one does not "ascribe causal relationships between variables"?

 

My brief answer is this:

 

Both "predictive models" are descriptive rather than explanatory with respect to empirical phenomena in their domains, and owe their "predictive success" to the stability of Nature's unknown physical attributes whereby the phenomena are generated.

 

In this respect, Einstein's "description" of Solar System Planetary Orbits is only marginally more precise than that of Newton but, when construed as "explanation", the algebraic symbols that comprise the two "predictive models" have next to nothing in common with one another.

 

Gunnar

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Harry Veeder <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: Gunnar Tomasson <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 1:07 PM

Subject: Re: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 12

 

....
> For purposes of making predictions what else can one do but ascribe causal
> relationships between variables? We must risk being mechanically
> presumptive in order to make predictions. When our predictions turn
> out to be wrong we must revise our theories if we *care* about
> making accurate predictions.
>
> Harry Veeder
>
>