Re: Re. more squiggly lines

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:18:59 -0400 Gunnar Tomasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Samuelson has done some thinking on the methodological points at
> issue since his student days.

Yes, and it has not been much more sophisticated.  I simply cannot
understand your strategy of selective quotation on these
methodological issues.  As a matter of history of thought the
consistencies and inconsistencies in Samuelson's pronouncements---for
surely we can agree that they are delphic pronouncements rather than
serious analyses---might be of some interest.  But you behave here
with the same inconsistency you displayed with Newton. First you offer
some quote (better chosen in this case) that you think supports your
view *if* interpreted as an appeal to authority.  Then you discuss the
author in a way that makes it clear that you do not consider him an
authority.  You need to make up your mind!

Let me ask you this: roughly what proportion of Samuelson's published
work would you guess is empirical?  Or to put in another way, how much
experience do you think he has grappling with data?  Like all too many
people who make pronouncements about scientific methodology, he has no
clue about was works and what does not when you get down to the
nitty-gritty.  Fortunately, when it comes to doing empirical
work, the profession just disregards him and goes about its business.

> I agree with Samuelson "that when one descends lower still, say to
> certain areas of sociology that are almost completely without
> substantive content, it may not matter much one way or the other
> what truths or errors about scientific method are involved - for the
> reason that nothing matters."

Of course in Samuelson's case this just reflects a general bias
against sociology, of which I'll wage he has read little.  That does
not mean the statement is false: the phrase 'certain areas' allows him
to get away with stating the neoclassical economist's prejudice
against sociology without being responsible to back it up.  But that
qualifying phrase would allow us to substitute any field at all: there
is a lot of bad work in every field, including physics (although of
course the social sciences attract a greater proportion of cranks).

Cheers,
Alan