Some appromixation of reality I'd say. The thing is that models which can make some predictions but with dodgy assumptions are very bad for policy, it is hard to tell casuality and to proceed in the right direction.
The people who claim to have "reasonable" assumptions tend to be of the variety that write excellent works like
The Great Crash or spend their time arguing economics as though it were still the early 20th century (or vote for Ron Paul). In all honesty, it's impossible to explain something as systematic, and varied as an economy without first looking through the numbers. The way individuals learn to look through the numbers is through teaching; teaching happens through communication, and communication is generally facilitated by words.
Of course you can use an economists writings as proof, it simply means one has to read what that economist said and hwo they came to that conclusion.
It was not a "non-empirical" study, in fact it is based around the Radcliffe report and other empirical data.
This is what I was getting at earlier. How an author came to their conclusions, and whether or not one finds the conclusions reasonable is dependent on numerous factors. (Some of these factors are) 1. Did the individual comprehend the work (a good starting point). 2. Did the reader understand how the writer was using certain words, and 3. Does the author start from a point that guarantees a certain conclusion (which is very often the case). All of those factors have lead to incalculable journal articles in literature trying to figure out what authors have said. Presumably in economics we are saved such a process because the writing is rather "rational." However, individuals are not rational, and they cannot be very well described by words either. I've tried to say this before, but I don't think it was entirely clear, words are by nature somewhat comparative, and ultimately finite.
Humans, for all intents and purposes (meaning, if we want to take reality "real") are subject to quite a few biological processes. We are in essence creatures of emotion/biology. However, that shared biology tends to lead to some notable trends in the ways human's behave. This may account for history repeating itself on so many occasions. Words were generally ,created for the purposes of communication (I think this exact idea came from Rousseau's tract on Inequality, which I really cannot recall the name of). If you wish to describe reality you need an infinite description tool.
Can the framework reason provides be said to explain what actual evidence tells us? Can't a framework also tell one what to look for in data?
I'm not interested in post-modernist idiocy. Let's leave aside the post-modernism because I really can' see how it helps your argument, in fact it tends to weaken it if you buy the rubbish that is.
This sounds like a mighty strong argument against it. I wasn't saying you should take all of the **** that came out of pomo analysis. You should take the the most significant points of the analysis and apply it. I think most people (doing real economic research) would regard what you likely spend your time reading as exceptionally dated (just like many people now say they are "over" post-modernism). I had a feeling you wanted more to participate in a book discussion more than you did in a
casual debate. I don't plan on making all of my comments entirely philosophically consistent, and as a result I also try not to nit-pick your points because that leads to moronic wikipedia binges rather than anything worth reading.
You seem to jump between extreme subjectivism and objectivism with breathtaking speed. I can only conclude you don't knoiw what you are talking about or this is some kind of strange debating technique.
It's almost as though Ayn and Albert have been fornicating in my id.
I can only conclude that you might be better served asking questions rather than simply rushing to your conclusions. Again, if you want to talk to experts on this your professors are a fine source. Again, this is a website with ads like "which liberal said I'm having a good crisis" suffice it to say I'm not going to be writing journal articles for posts.
The post-modernists made their points, they have far from triumped even if they added something to the the inllectual debate, as my lecturer from the US said, Post-modernism is rather over in the US, it has been largely displaced and everyone has moved on.
Using your standard for "post-modernism" being mostly over, I think we could say the same thing about the mode of economic analysis you so strongly champion; most economists do not spend their time actively questioning normative issues, instead they may prove some of the inefficient aspects of markets (see Joseph Stiglitz, and other works by neuro-economists), but they add to the field because there ideas don't have to be rational. You can test them again, and again, to the changing circumstances of the world. To the point, models must be explained by words, and sometimes the words point us to other directions, but tying our
