Oh, I see, so those conservative economists who in the name of political ideology destroy any possible good reputation as scientists by rejecting the science of econometrics (which is in fact mathematical economics) when it contradicts their conservative ideology (which is almost always), are scientists, but those non-conservative economists who say let the this science tell us what is true and who accept such are not scientists.
Yeah, that holds up as great logic.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Wayne Bishop <email@example.com> wrote: > In spite of your perspective, mathematical economics is mathematics as you > pointed out. Its connection to the real economics of the world, however, is > an entirely different matter. Trusting it as anything more is closer to > religion than science. > > Wayne > > At 08:05 PM 9/8/2012, Paul Tanner wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:06 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> Economists are among the least logical >> of thinkers. >> > > If you are talking about conservative economists who reject > mathematical economics, then of course you are right. Such economists > have disgraced themselves as scientists in the name of political > ideology - as have for instance biologists who in the name of > religious ideology rejected evolution. > > But mathematical economists are at least as mathematical and logical > in their thinking as any engineer. Look at 2010 Mathematics Subject > Classification (MSC2010) > > http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf > > and go to 91 and all its subsets. If you want to say that all this > mathematical science that is published in this area is not legitimate > just because you say so, then have at it. > > But I for one just don't respect science denial, no matter what the > science is - never have, never will.