tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post111401541507690007..comments2023-10-30T11:13:44.310-04:00Comments on The Ethical Werewolf ‡ by Neil Sinhababu : Mammals for Better EconomicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post-1114111526036721832005-04-21T15:25:00.000-04:002005-04-21T15:25:00.000-04:00I think I made my feelings on economists being pre...I think I made my feelings on economists being pretentious pretty strongly <A HREF="http://rousseau.blogspot.com/2005/02/dear-economic-pundits.html" REL="nofollow">a while ago</A>.<BR/><BR/>They're an important social science, and most economists who are actually professors or analysts acknowledge that they are nothing more. (There's the old saw "all government professors want to be economists, and all economists want to be mathematicians". Numbers envy really).<BR/><BR/>It's those who do act like we're have proven orthodoxies that are bad, since the lack of science isn't the sin, but a claim to science and pointing out someone who lacks it. But that's pretty normal rhetoric for politicians and pundits. I hate people who say socialism is clearly bad because the USSR failed, but these are the same people who say sexual-freedom is bad because of the 60's. I don't take them to represent real economics.<BR/><BR/>The problem is panda's remarks seem largely anti-intellectual criticisms of any science. Physics, biology, math, CS, all often use simplifying assumptions. And "the man in the street test"? Are you kidding me? Etc.Bluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14667147687700902147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post-1114048951778555202005-04-20T22:02:00.000-04:002005-04-20T22:02:00.000-04:00Since humans and wolves are both mammals, and mamm...Since humans and wolves are both mammals, and mammalhood isn't something that probably doesn't exclude dramatic changes in form, I'd say that werewolves are mammals. <BR/><BR/>All the italicized stuff, including the "if the price is driven down to zero" comes from Angelica, who also happens to be battlepanda. <BR/><BR/>The real thing I'm attacking here is a psychological tendency on the part of some economists whom I've talked to -- a tendency to hastily and carelessly accept unreasonable simplifying assumptions (about elasticity, for instance) in order to get to the mathy stuff that they're so proud of being able to do. It's as if they thought the purity of math would be sufficient to make up for the flaws in their assumptions, when really the math just seals the flaws into the conclusion.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672033745772751532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345275.post-1114022135822995122005-04-20T14:35:00.000-04:002005-04-20T14:35:00.000-04:00Gee. I never conceptualized werewolves as mammals....Gee. I never conceptualized werewolves as mammals. But I guess you'd know better than I.<BR/><BR/>Yes. Trying to overcome incorrect assumptions with lots of cool maths is a dangerous thing. Sigh. If only economists would accept their place in the world as social scientist who just so happens to deal in numbers.Battlepandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842340982653417060noreply@blogger.com