Two claims actually
1- This
2 - It's logical consequence - that current economics describes said behaviour (in an empirical fashion)
(Also 3 - How can tell the difference between "describing" behaviour and "justifying" it if all we have go on are believes about "human nature"?)
I've tried to explain this before, but your idea of what economics is seems to be based on some strange prejudices. This is sort of like asking us to prove that the Jews aren't running the banks...
Anyway, 2 doesn't follow logically from 1 at all. Although there is quite a bit of truth to it.
3 I don't get. If we aren't justifying, then we aren't justifying?
Well explain it to me again. The last time it struck me as self-falsifying nonsense.
I agree that logically 2 doesn´t follow 1, I should have been clearer, but if it doesn´t, then what are we studying?
As for 3. By attempting to describe reality how can you be sure that you are not justifying it? (The world is x, therefore y is impossible).
My question can be boiled down to this: Why can we believe that mathematics is a good tool for predicting human behaviour. This should especially be asked given the context that faulty equations and assumptions about risk are partly responsible for the financial crisis which the world is currently going through.
You anti-semite comment is ridiculous.
Well, you're asking us to disprove your ridiculous prejudice about economics which anyone who is studying it knows is not true. It'd be sort of like asking me to prove that I don't have polar bears running down my street in the morning.
Obviously we are attempting to describe reality. If we already were there would be no more economic research done. But few scientific fields are done. Economics has only been around for a couple of centuries as anything resembling scientific inquiry, while, say, physics or mathematics have been at it for millennia. I think economics can tell us a lot about human behaviour, but there is still a lot to do.
I'm still not sure what 3 means. I guess in a postmodern sense, that is trivially true of everything. But it's not as if economic research in general is pro some sort of status quo. You observe a phenomenon (unemployment in a country, donations to charity, growth in countries receiving foreign aid, etc) and you then try and explain that phenomenon.
So, why can we believe that mathematics is a good tool for predicting human behaviour? Well, first off I don't think anyone is saying that. Again, you don't seem to be very familiar with how economic research is conducted. Mathematics doesn't explain why people like to have iPads. It can be used to explain how people liking iPads translates into what price iPads are sold for in the market.
While economists do look at the first issue as well on occassion it isn't typically viewed as within the field (that's more the domainof psychology or sociology, at least historically).
The financial crisis was partly due to mathematical modelling built on faulty assumptions. That doesn't necessarily indict using math to calculate things. Me thinking $10 is enough to buy to lunches costin $6 each isn't proof that one can't use math to calculate what to buy.
Poll
