tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post1098787270815213457..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: What to theorize when your theory's rejectedJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-36979105265930563632018-01-23T10:40:23.729-08:002018-01-23T10:40:23.729-08:00There are even classic non-mathematical experiment...There are even classic non-mathematical experiments that have actually rejected theories (e.g. "spontaneous generation" by Pasteur). I'm not questioning the existence or usefulness of non-mathematical experiments.<br /><br />But economics is really a field about human concepts more than observation of physical systems. Ostrom's work on managing commons isn't mathematical, but its also a policy prescription and not really something you "reject" but rather more like business management practices: some work better in some situations. But the fact that "six-sigma" fails to turn around your software company doesn't "reject" "six-sigma". In the same way, the existence of mismanaged commons does not reject Ostrom's theories. And most non-mathematical theories in economics are more like Ostrom than Pasteur.<br /><br />And then we have the additional problem of finding one of those non-mathematical theories that has been rejected and continues to be used. If we can't find such a theory, then Simon's and Robert's responses are just vacuous.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-20471124252116911932018-01-22T21:34:33.149-08:002018-01-22T21:34:33.149-08:00Regarding your update of Jan 18, 2018: Good stuff....Regarding your update of Jan 18, 2018: Good stuff.<br /><br />Re: rejecting non-mathematical models: I don't know about economics, but the classic example is finding fossils of rabbits in the Jurassic layer (as being sufficient to reject evolution). Also you may want to check your last sentence. I read it a couple of times and I think it has one too many "I" in it and it might do with some parenthesis as well. Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-5929672561863835852018-01-22T12:59:55.132-08:002018-01-22T12:59:55.132-08:00You would have to go back to the original conversa...You would have to go back to the original conversation on Twitter where it was understood that we were talking about rejecting mathematical models (e.g. DSGE, VARs, SEMs).<br /><br />If we're not talking about mathematical models being rejected by empirical data, then as I mention at the end of the update above, my whole post is moot (which could hardly be interpreted as "scrabbling around for anything" <br />that would make me right). I haven't the foggiest idea of how you reject a non-mathematical model with numerical economic data like interest rates or GDP.<br /><br />You can reject models like "spontaneous generation" in biology, but I can't currently think of any *macro* models that are non-mathematical that have been rejected and are still being used by mainstream macro. I would be genuinely interested in knowing what those are.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-61334266801607897712018-01-22T12:29:44.548-08:002018-01-22T12:29:44.548-08:00I don't get why the amount of formal maths use...I don't get why the amount of formal maths used is relevant here?<br /><br />Seems a bit scrabbling around for anything that'll make you right... donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13809052984282157093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-89042536243803391392018-01-21T13:31:12.575-08:002018-01-21T13:31:12.575-08:00Cheers, Tom!Cheers, Tom!Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-68905812615415681092018-01-18T00:10:41.643-08:002018-01-18T00:10:41.643-08:00A good read. Thanks!A good read. Thanks!Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com