FW: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 12

["Harry Veeder" <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
From: "Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 12
Date: Wed, May 24, 2000, 6:26 pm


>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.

This is *an* explanation of causality, so as such it does not negate
the need to ascribe casual relationships between variables
when making predictions. When we make predictions they rely
on explanations of "cause". There are perhaps many explanations
of "cause" and they need not be determinstic. There is no need
to avoid ascribing causal relationships because we don't yet have
an adequate explanation (or "mechanism"). We should not
try to conceal our casual intuition behind a wall of mathematical
formalisms. Newton was uneasy and even embarrassed
by his "attractive" account of gravity because most phenomena
in his day were being explained in terms of the interaction
of material bodies.



>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.

Yes, but the two explanations do lead to very different cosmologies.

Harry Veeder


----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Veeder <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: Gunnar Tomasson <tomasson@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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
>
>