Re: [OPE] Marshall's rules for the use of methematics

From: Alejandro Agafonow <>
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 12:16:30 EST

Are you replying, Ian, as a Social Scientist or as a Natural Scientist/ Engineer?   Should I bring all the scholarship on the differences between both realm of knowledge, and the pitfalls of positivism?   Regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Ian Wright <> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <> Enviado: lunes, 12 de enero, 2009 17:46:07 Asunto: Re: [OPE] Marshall's rules for the use of methematics You get the same advice for the Cambridge Journal of Economics. The passage has some good intent: try to communicate as clearly as possible to the widest range of people. But fundamentally it is philistine. On what grounds is there to suppose that Natural Language is an adequate language to describe natural and social processes? Many of the most important advances in scientific knowledge are intimately bound-up with the innovation of new kinds of technical languages (e.g., calculus, logic, computer simulations etc.) Applied mathematicians generally use Natural Language as shorthand and then use Mathematical Language to reason and communicate. Natural Language simply lacks the concepts. I hear an echo of Britain's landed aristocracy in this passage: the disdain for the world of commerce, of numbers, of grubby tradesmen at the back door with their talk of science. Obviously I think that this is rotten advice! And I suspect that many that promulgate this advice do not even follow it. In other words, they go straight to the Natural Language without doing the math and burning it. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Mon Jan 12 12:29:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EST