One has to compare the delicate economic reasoning which led Keynes to assume that interest did not affect MPC, or the complex considerations on which Hicks constructs Capital and Time, with the modern axiomatic method that reasons downwards. The former seems to retain a grasp of economic reality even after mathematical cloaking, while the latter seems arid.
It IS arid. To "assume an axiom" and then apply reason to develop a theory from which you then proscribe policy, as so many mathematical economists of the post '70's generation appear to do, is no different to the approach taken by the scientists of the Spanish Inquisition and those impositions of belief upon others which are no more than a belief in the rightness of one's own beliefs.
It is not only arid, it is also totally illegitimate in an academic context. Such an approach to be presented, and even worse when it is accepted, is a demonstration of the extent to which the mainstream of academia has been infiltrated and subverted by commercial, political and other selfish interests seeking fraudulent 'endorsements' and 'validations' from supposedly authoritative sources for their own exploitative schemes.
It should be a criminal offence.....
Rob
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Algebra
- Matrix