Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Ted,
       I don't know that I would say that the Nash equilibrium
provides a _profound_ insight into real people.  But it has
proven to be a very useful touchstone.  It really is a
different way of thinking about equilibrium, that there is an
equilibrium when what each of us is doing is what the other
one thinks we are doing.  A serious problem is that there
are usually many, indeed very many, such equilibria in
many situations.
       But, it has proven empirically useful for studying many
markets and other situations, a useful touchstone if you
will.  There are many markets and other situations where one
indeed sees Nash equilibria emerging or happening.  There
are others where one does not.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Winslow" <egwinslow@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education


>
> Barkley wrote:
>
> >   In case you did not notice, I did not defend deductivism
> > in general, and indeed declared that current math econ is
> > largely moving beyond it.
>
> I noticed that.  My point was to explicate the specific nature of the
> critique of deductivism contained in the passage from Whitehead I
> quoted, a critique rooted in the ontological concept of internal
> relations.  It's this that the example from Keynes (about which you
> make no comment) was meant to illustrate.  Where in current math econ
> is the specific nature of that critique taken into account?  How, for
> instance, is it taken into account in your own mathematical treatment
> of behaviour in financial markets?
>
> Nash doesn't take account of it does he?  I've read Mirowski.  What you
> say about the influence of Nash on evolutionary biology hardly
> demonstrates that that what we find in his ideas about agents
> constitutes profound insight into the character of real human
> individuals.  In what way do these ideas accurately describe what real
> individuals are, could be or should be?
>
> Ted
>
>