Re: The Aggregate Supply Function (fwd)

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Gunnar Tómasson wrote:
> if Newton was correct in insisting that the near-perfect match between
> 'predictions' made on the basis of his gravitational equations and observed
> orbital mechanics within the solar system had NOTHING to do with our
> understanding of the physics involved, why should the success or - more
> often - failure of the 'predictions' made by econometricians have ANYTHING
> to do with our understanding of the economics involved?

However the fact of the matter is that economists are much more
willing to abandon theory in make predictions (see the VAR
literature) than are physicists, who *always* ground their predictions
in an understanding of the physics involved.

In any case Gunnar, you still mistake the role that is available to
you given your interest in methodology.  You want to correct the work
of people who have much more reason for doing what they are doing than
you have for criticising it.  One of the healthy changes in the
methodology literature was when it became increasingly descriptive and
decreasingly prescriptive.  I.e., when the methodologists decided to
humbly listen and learn rather than presuming to teach what they could
not practice.

Alan