We will argue that the common contrast between Neoclassical models and Austrian School is not such, if it is assumed Friedman’s 1953 text, Musgrave’s (1981), and Mäki’s MISS account of models (Models as Isolations and credible Surrogate Systems). In this context the theory of market process might be understood as the model of the Austrian School of Economics, considering the model structure: “if such and such assumptions, then…”. The assumptions would be: a) prices, b) free market, and c) the tendency to learning. We may formulate the model in this way: “if there are prices, free market, and tendency to learning, then the market tends towards coordination” (Zanotti & Borella, 2015). The theory of market process might take part in the discussion on how realistic these assumptions are. We will point out meaningful similarities between the notion of pattern prediction developed in Hayek (1964) and the notion of model (Borella, 2021). To show the relevance of the ontological bases for the assessment of the realism of models, we will introduce the philosophical foundation of spontaneous order. Once more, Hayek seems to have brought the Austrian School closer to the debate over realism of economic models.
{"title":"Models, realism and market process","authors":"Agustina Borella","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3891107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3891107","url":null,"abstract":"We will argue that the common contrast between Neoclassical models and Austrian School is not such, if it is assumed Friedman’s 1953 text, Musgrave’s (1981), and Mäki’s MISS account of models (Models as Isolations and credible Surrogate Systems). In this context the theory of market process might be understood as the model of the Austrian School of Economics, considering the model structure: “if such and such assumptions, then…”. The assumptions would be: a) prices, b) free market, and c) the tendency to learning. We may formulate the model in this way: “if there are prices, free market, and tendency to learning, then the market tends towards coordination” (Zanotti & Borella, 2015). The theory of market process might take part in the discussion on how realistic these assumptions are. We will point out meaningful similarities between the notion of pattern prediction developed in Hayek (1964) and the notion of model (Borella, 2021). To show the relevance of the ontological bases for the assessment of the realism of models, we will introduce the philosophical foundation of spontaneous order. Once more, Hayek seems to have brought the Austrian School closer to the debate over realism of economic models.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130253325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A good friend of mine, Brent Gilliland wrote an article entitled 'In Defense of Misesian Historical Revisionism' and in this article, I attempt to draw a re-formulation of the argument that Gilliland makes and develop it from a Hayekian point of view. I attempt to show that, in general historical evolution cannot be traced to a strict rationalist interpretation, but rather history evolves along the lines of observed behaviours, cooperation, culture and social values. I attempt to emphasise that, contrary to Gilliland's emphasis on individual ideas, it should really be placed on various interacting parts rather than merely a stone-cold abstract individual.
{"title":"The Mises-Hayek Connection","authors":"Craig Duddy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3882193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3882193","url":null,"abstract":"A good friend of mine, Brent Gilliland wrote an article entitled 'In Defense of Misesian Historical Revisionism' and in this article, I attempt to draw a re-formulation of the argument that Gilliland makes and develop it from a Hayekian point of view. I attempt to show that, in general historical evolution cannot be traced to a strict rationalist interpretation, but rather history evolves along the lines of observed behaviours, cooperation, culture and social values. I attempt to emphasise that, contrary to Gilliland's emphasis on individual ideas, it should really be placed on various interacting parts rather than merely a stone-cold abstract individual.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116700613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Portuguese abstract: A mais antiga referência da filosofia sobre o termo felicidade é derivada do filósofo grego Tales de Mileto (624-558 a.C.), que designa felicidade como ter um corpo saudável, uma alma com boa formação e ser um indivíduo de sorte. Já para Sócrates, a felicidade não possui uma conexão tão direta com o corpo, a maior importância é dada a estar bem com a alma, propiciado por uma conduta adequada e virtuosa. Para Kant, a felicidade está ligada com os desejos e prazeres, não constitui parte de uma investigação filosófica. Nas últimas décadas que os estudos que envolvem felicidade na Economia se estabelecem de fato como temática alternativa. A explicação para isto encontra-se no progresso material alcançado pelo mundo e pelos questionamentos de alguns economistas da validade de indicadores estritamente econômicos, como o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), para representar a satisfação com a vida dos cidadãos de um país. Dessa forma, o objetivo principal deste é contribuir para o corpo de conhecimento existente, consolidando as descobertas da literatura sobre Economia da Felicidade; agrupando-as em temas e subtemas principais; descrevendo os mecanismos com base nos artigos empíricos precedentes, destacando as variáveis independentes, dependentes, de controle e moderadoras, para estudar as relações causais entre as variáveis em estudo; propondo uma agenda para pesquisas futuras; e informar os legisladores sobre as decisões que influenciam o nível de felicidade humana por meio de regras e regulamentos legislativos. Nossos resultados sugerem priorizar a conceituação de felicidade enquanto computa o nível de felicidade nos níveis individual ou coletivo. Além disso, o estudo recomenda que os governos estabeleçam as condições que permitam aos indivíduos relatar a felicidade independentemente da pressão política para responder estrategicamente por números impressionantes de nível de felicidade no nível macro.
English abstract: Philosophy's earliest reference to the term happiness is derived from the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus (624-558 BC), who designates happiness as having a healthy body, a well-educated soul, and being a lucky individual. For Socrates, happiness does not have such a direct connection with the body, the greatest importance is given to being well with the soul, provided by an adequate and virtuous conduct. For Kant, happiness is linked with desires and pleasures, it is not part of a philosophical investigation. In recent decades, studies involving happiness in economics have in fact established themselves as an alternative theme. The explanation for this is found in the material progress achieved by the world and in the questioning of some economists about the validity of strictly economic indicators, such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to represent the satisfaction with life of the citizens of a country. In this way, its main objective is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, consol
{"title":"FELICIDADE TRAZ DINHEIRO? UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DA LITERATURA SOBRE A ECONOMIA DA FELICIDADE (Does Happiness Bring Money? A Systematic Review of the Economy of Happiness)","authors":"Ahmed Sameer El Khatib","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3863730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3863730","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Portuguese abstract:</b> A mais antiga referência da filosofia sobre o termo felicidade é derivada do filósofo grego Tales de Mileto (624-558 a.C.), que designa felicidade como ter um corpo saudável, uma alma com boa formação e ser um indivíduo de sorte. Já para Sócrates, a felicidade não possui uma conexão tão direta com o corpo, a maior importância é dada a estar bem com a alma, propiciado por uma conduta adequada e virtuosa. Para Kant, a felicidade está ligada com os desejos e prazeres, não constitui parte de uma investigação filosófica. Nas últimas décadas que os estudos que envolvem felicidade na Economia se estabelecem de fato como temática alternativa. A explicação para isto encontra-se no progresso material alcançado pelo mundo e pelos questionamentos de alguns economistas da validade de indicadores estritamente econômicos, como o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), para representar a satisfação com a vida dos cidadãos de um país. Dessa forma, o objetivo principal deste é contribuir para o corpo de conhecimento existente, consolidando as descobertas da literatura sobre Economia da Felicidade; agrupando-as em temas e subtemas principais; descrevendo os mecanismos com base nos artigos empíricos precedentes, destacando as variáveis independentes, dependentes, de controle e moderadoras, para estudar as relações causais entre as variáveis em estudo; propondo uma agenda para pesquisas futuras; e informar os legisladores sobre as decisões que influenciam o nível de felicidade humana por meio de regras e regulamentos legislativos. Nossos resultados sugerem priorizar a conceituação de felicidade enquanto computa o nível de felicidade nos níveis individual ou coletivo. Além disso, o estudo recomenda que os governos estabeleçam as condições que permitam aos indivíduos relatar a felicidade independentemente da pressão política para responder estrategicamente por números impressionantes de nível de felicidade no nível macro.<br><br><b>English abstract:</b> Philosophy's earliest reference to the term happiness is derived from the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus (624-558 BC), who designates happiness as having a healthy body, a well-educated soul, and being a lucky individual. For Socrates, happiness does not have such a direct connection with the body, the greatest importance is given to being well with the soul, provided by an adequate and virtuous conduct. For Kant, happiness is linked with desires and pleasures, it is not part of a philosophical investigation. In recent decades, studies involving happiness in economics have in fact established themselves as an alternative theme. The explanation for this is found in the material progress achieved by the world and in the questioning of some economists about the validity of strictly economic indicators, such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to represent the satisfaction with life of the citizens of a country. In this way, its main objective is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, consol","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124439470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Smoothing splines are splines fit including a roughness penalty. They can be used across groups of variables in regression models to produce more parsimonious models with improved accuracy. For APC (age-period-cohort) models, the variables in each direction can be numbered sequentially 1:N, which simplifies spline fitting. Further simplification is proposed using a different roughness penalty. Some key calculations then become closed-form, and numeric optimization for the degree of smoothing is simpler. Further, this allows the entire estimation to be done simply in MCMC for Bayesian and random-effects models, improving the estimation of the smoothing parameter and providing distributions of the parameters (or random effects) and the selection of the spline knots.
{"title":"Simplified Smoothing Splines for APC Models","authors":"G. Venter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3852449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3852449","url":null,"abstract":"Smoothing splines are splines fit including a roughness penalty. They can be used across groups of variables in regression models to produce more parsimonious models with improved accuracy. For APC (age-period-cohort) models, the variables in each direction can be numbered sequentially 1:N, which simplifies spline fitting. Further simplification is proposed using a different roughness penalty. Some key calculations then become closed-form, and numeric optimization for the degree of smoothing is simpler. Further, this allows the entire estimation to be done simply in MCMC for Bayesian and random-effects models, improving the estimation of the smoothing parameter and providing distributions of the parameters (or random effects) and the selection of the spline knots.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132068496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evolutionary arguments and incentive theory point to the importance of variety and rotation of editorial board members to stimulate innovative research. Using a unique dataset covering more than 100 economics journals over the period 1990-2011, we document trends in the incidence of multiple positions, editorial duration and institutional background for more than 6,100 board members. We put these figures into perspective using the literature on boards of directors and measures of market concentration. The picture that emerges is of a discipline with a high concentration of institutional and individual power, especially at the more prestigious journals. Evidence suggests this indeed matters: there is a strong negative association between editorial duration and journal impact.
{"title":"Concentration of Power at the Editorial Boards of Economics Journals","authors":"Lorenzo Ductor, B. Visser","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3847686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3847686","url":null,"abstract":"Evolutionary arguments and incentive theory point to the importance of variety and rotation of editorial board members to stimulate innovative research. Using a unique dataset covering more than 100 economics journals over the period 1990-2011, we document trends in the incidence of multiple positions, editorial duration and institutional background for more than 6,100 board members. We put these figures into perspective using the literature on boards of directors and measures of market concentration. The picture that emerges is of a discipline with a high concentration of institutional and individual power, especially at the more prestigious journals. Evidence suggests this indeed matters: there is a strong negative association between editorial duration and journal impact.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115298601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper investigates the interaction of structural change and the labor share. We use a series of thought experiments that combine theoretical assumptions underlying labor markets in Baumol and Lewis with the accounting of a sectoral decomposition of the labor share. The focus lies on a shift of employment from progressive to stagnant activities. To single out this shift, we construct simplified, hypothetical economies of Baumolian and Lewisian type. A thus sharpened Occam's razor leads to clear and illustrative results: Baumolian structural change is inconsistent with the facts, whereas Lewisian outcomes conform to observed phenomena. A key issue in the relevant Lewisian scenario is that progressive activities take center stage. The details of our contribution are as follows. First, the sectoral decomposition shows that increasing stagnant sector employment shares coincides with downward decoupling in progressive activities, despite the fact that stagnant sector labor shares are higher. Second, we formulate cases based on the most consequential assumptions outlined in Baumol (1967) and Lewis (1954). Key results are that: (i) stagnant sector distribution dominates under Baumolian structural change; (ii) Lewisian structural change entertains the possibility of hysteresis; and (iii) decoupling of wages and productivity growth emerges only in the Lewis classical model.
{"title":"The labor share and structural change: insights from Baumol and Lewis","authors":"C. Rada, A. Schiavone, Rudiger von Arnim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3807373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3807373","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the interaction of structural change and the labor share. We use a series of thought experiments that combine theoretical assumptions underlying labor markets in Baumol and Lewis with the accounting of a sectoral decomposition of the labor share. The focus lies on a shift of employment from progressive to stagnant activities. To single out this shift, we construct simplified, hypothetical economies of Baumolian and Lewisian type. A thus sharpened Occam's<br>razor leads to clear and illustrative results: Baumolian structural change is inconsistent with the facts, whereas Lewisian outcomes conform to observed phenomena. A key issue in the relevant Lewisian scenario is that progressive activities take center stage. The details of our contribution are as follows. First, the sectoral decomposition shows that increasing stagnant sector employment shares coincides with downward decoupling in progressive activities, despite the fact that stagnant sector labor shares are higher. Second, we formulate cases based on the most consequential assumptions outlined in Baumol (1967) and Lewis (1954). Key results are that: (i) stagnant sector distribution dominates under Baumolian structural change; (ii) Lewisian structural change entertains the possibility of hysteresis; and (iii) decoupling of wages and productivity growth emerges only<br>in the Lewis classical model.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129611885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Spanish Abstract: Este documento realiza una comparación entre la microeconomía y la macroeconomía, con el fin de identificar las diferencias entre estas dos áreas. Se plantea que, aunque existen diferencias de objeto y método entre las dos, estas no son fundamentales. Se sugiere que la diferencia fundamental es de propósito: en la medida en que parte de la escuela neoclásica, la microeconomía busca dar una respuesta formal al problema filosófico de Adam Smith; la macroeconomía, en cambio, tiene un propósito más empírico: explicar la realidad y sus problemas y proponer alternativas de solución.
English Abstract: This paper compares micro and microeconomics in order to identify the differences between these two fields. Although there are differences in scope and method, they are not the key ones. The main difference is of purpose: as it is part of the neoclassical school, microeconomics intends to give a formal answer to Adam Smith’s philosophical question; in contrast, macroeconomics has a more empirical purpose: to explain reality and its problems, and to propose solutions to them.
摘要:本文对微观经济学和宏观经济学进行了比较，以确定这两个领域之间的差异。本文提出，虽然两者在对象和方法上存在差异，但这些差异并不是根本的。有人认为，根本的区别在于目的:在新古典主义学派的基础上，微观经济学寻求对亚当·斯密的哲学问题给出正式的答案;另一方面，宏观经济学有一个更实证的目的:解释现实及其问题，并提出解决方案。不要把English Abstract: This paper一班and microeconomics in order to确定the差异between two fields。虽然在范围和方法上有不同，但它们不是关键。主要区别在于目的:作为新古典主义学派的一部分，微观经济学旨在为亚当·斯密的哲学问题提供一个正式的答案;相比之下，宏观经济学有一个更实证的目的:解释现实及其问题，并提出解决方案。
{"title":"La macroeconomía: un punto de vista metodológico (Macroeconomics: A Methodological Approach)","authors":"Mario García Molina","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3756233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3756233","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> Este documento realiza una comparación entre la microeconomía y la macroeconomía, con el fin de identificar las diferencias entre estas dos áreas. Se plantea que, aunque existen diferencias de objeto y método entre las dos, estas no son fundamentales. Se sugiere que la diferencia fundamental es de propósito: en la medida en que parte de la escuela neoclásica, la microeconomía busca dar una respuesta formal al problema filosófico de Adam Smith; la macroeconomía, en cambio, tiene un propósito más empírico: explicar la realidad y sus problemas y proponer alternativas de solución.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> This paper compares micro and microeconomics in order to identify the differences between these two fields. Although there are differences in scope and method, they are not the key ones. The main difference is of purpose: as it is part of the neoclassical school, microeconomics intends to give a formal answer to Adam Smith’s philosophical question; in contrast, macroeconomics has a more empirical purpose: to explain reality and its problems, and to propose solutions to them.<br>","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116353328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What characterises a new insight, what distinguishes ideas, when may we speak of inspiration, what induces the formation of new (general) concepts, and how do such concepts assume their contentual meaning? How does such novelty (hence the title, The Road to Novelty) come into the world and what constitutes its essence? How are the phenomena of meaning, insight and idea connected to information? And, as a limitation: What conditions must the nature of recognition and any approach to it meet so that our cognitive capacity is able to answer the preceding questions, i.e. so that it may recognise itself? This set of questions points towards the core topic of epistemology or, more generally, of cognitive science. The cycle The Road to Novelty offers a new and integrative scientific solution to these questions. The key to answering them is provided by a new category of information content, which we call CoIn. This new category derives from generalised symmetry considerations and complements the familiar Bits & Bytes. As our guiding idea, the CoIn provide the pivotal point of all reflections and results along The Road to Novelty. Using typical problems and providing their solutions, as well as on the basis of theoretical deliberations, we show that the phenomena of meaning, insight and ideas can be integratively traced back to this common informational root CoIn. The concurrence of insight, a new category of information content, idea and meaning thus also explains the interdisciplinary nature of The Road to Novelty. Knowing about this common informational root in turn enables a new foundation of epistemology, from which far-reaching conclusions may be drawn regarding questions that are central to a number of disciplines within cognitive science, including philosophy, linguistics and the logic of language, information theory together with artificial intelligence (AI), and up to the limits of formal approaches. Finally, the nature of the emergence of insights or ideas – how does such novelty come into the world? – also becomes addressable as what we call symmetry synthesis: The tree of knowledge is rooted in symmetry syntheses. As a consequence, both the meanings of general language concepts and scientific results such as (physical) laws or models manifest themselves in the form of generalised symmetries (CoIn). Bits & Bytes can likewise be interpreted in the symmetry context, namely as symmetry breaking. They serve the realm of decisions (symmetry breaking), which is complementary to recognition (to symmetry syntheses or to CoIn). As a result, both categories of information content are rooted in the notion of symmetry, yet they in a sense root at opposite ends of the concept. Together, symmetry syntheses and symmetry breaks as it were jointly provide the DNA building blocks for the informational perspective on the world. The fact that the two symmetry perspectives refer to incommensurable aspects of the world means that strong AI (creativity,
{"title":"The Road to Novelty","authors":"Helmuth Blaseio","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3257371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3257371","url":null,"abstract":"What characterises a new insight, what distinguishes ideas, when may we speak of inspiration, what induces the formation of new (general) concepts, and how do such concepts assume their contentual meaning? How does such novelty (hence the title, The Road to Novelty) come into the world and what constitutes its essence? How are the phenomena of meaning, insight and idea connected to information? And, as a limitation: What conditions must the nature of recognition and any approach to it meet so that our cognitive capacity is able to answer the preceding questions, i.e. so that it may recognise itself? \u0000 \u0000This set of questions points towards the core topic of epistemology or, more generally, of cognitive science. The cycle The Road to Novelty offers a new and integrative scientific solution to these questions. The key to answering them is provided by a new category of information content, which we call CoIn. This new category derives from generalised symmetry considerations and complements the familiar Bits & Bytes. As our guiding idea, the CoIn provide the pivotal point of all reflections and results along The Road to Novelty. Using typical problems and providing their solutions, as well as on the basis of theoretical deliberations, we show that the phenomena of meaning, insight and ideas can be integratively traced back to this common informational root CoIn. The concurrence of insight, a new category of information content, idea and meaning thus also explains the interdisciplinary nature of The Road to Novelty. \u0000 \u0000Knowing about this common informational root in turn enables a new foundation of epistemology, from which far-reaching conclusions may be drawn regarding questions that are central to a number of disciplines within cognitive science, including philosophy, linguistics and the logic of language, information theory together with artificial intelligence (AI), and up to the limits of formal approaches. Finally, the nature of the emergence of insights or ideas – how does such novelty come into the world? – also becomes addressable as what we call symmetry synthesis: The tree of knowledge is rooted in symmetry syntheses. As a consequence, both the meanings of general language concepts and scientific results such as (physical) laws or models manifest themselves in the form of generalised symmetries (CoIn). \u0000 \u0000Bits & Bytes can likewise be interpreted in the symmetry context, namely as symmetry breaking. They serve the realm of decisions (symmetry breaking), which is complementary to recognition (to symmetry syntheses or to CoIn). As a result, both categories of information content are rooted in the notion of symmetry, yet they in a sense root at opposite ends of the concept. Together, symmetry syntheses and symmetry breaks as it were jointly provide the DNA building blocks for the informational perspective on the world. \u0000 \u0000The fact that the two symmetry perspectives refer to incommensurable aspects of the world means that strong AI (creativity, ","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128933518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Greek abstract: Η μέχρι τώρα έρευνά μου που αποκαλύπτει θεμελιώδη λάθη της συμβατικής (νεοκλασικής) οικονομικής θεωρίας, βασίζεται κυρίως στη (λανθασμένη) αντίληψη της θεωρίας αυτής για το price taking και την οριζόντια καμπύλης ζήτησης της επιχείρησης, χρησιμοποιώντας αντ' αυτής την σωστή ατομική καμπύλη ζήτησης της επιχείρησης, που είναι κεκλιμένη και ίση με την συνολική ζήτηση διαιρεμένη δια του αριθμού των επιχειρήσεων για κάθε τιμή. Παρά τη μεγάλη αναγνωσιμότητα και το ζωηρό ακαδημαϊκό ενδιαφέρον που έχουν προκαλέσει τα σχετικά άρθρα μου, αντιλαμβάνομαι κάποιες δυσκολίες σχετικά με την αποδοχή της αναθεωρημένης θεωρίας και ίσως ακόμη και την κατανόησή της, λόγω φυσιολογικού εθισμού και προσκόλλησης στην παραδοσιακή θεωρία και τη μεθοδολογία της. Αυτό το άρθρο, ωστόσο, καταδεικνύει τα λάθη αυτά της συμβατικής θεωρίας χρησιμοποιώντας τη μεθοδολογία της ίδιας της συμβατικής θεωρίας, χωρίς να εμπλέκεται στο αμφιλεγόμενο ζήτημα της οριζόντιας ή κεκλιμένης καμπύλης ζήτησης της επιχείρησης.
English abstract: My research so far, which reveals fundamental mistakes of the conventional (neoclassical) economic theory, is based mainly on the (wrong) perception of this theory for the price taking and the horizontal demand curve for the firm, using instead the correct individual demand curve for the firm, which is sloping and equal to the total demand divided by the number of firms for each price. Despite the great readability and vivid academic interest that my relevant papers have caused, I feel some difficulties regarding the acceptance of the revised theory and perhaps even its understanding, due to physiological addiction and adherence to traditional theory and methodology. This article, however, demonstrates these mistakes of conventional theory using the methodology of the conventional theory itself, without getting involved in the controversial issue of the horizontal or sloping demand curve for the firm.
{"title":"Η Ανατροπή της Νεοκλασικής Θεωρίας μέσω των Ιδίων της Μέσων (The Disproof of Neoclassical Theory by means of Its Own Means)","authors":"Dimitrios Nomidis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3747000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3747000","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Greek abstract:</b> Η μέχρι τώρα έρευνά μου που αποκαλύπτει θεμελιώδη λάθη της συμβατικής (νεοκλασικής) οικονομικής θεωρίας, βασίζεται κυρίως στη (λανθασμένη) αντίληψη της θεωρίας αυτής για το price taking και την οριζόντια καμπύλης ζήτησης της επιχείρησης, χρησιμοποιώντας αντ' αυτής την σωστή ατομική καμπύλη ζήτησης της επιχείρησης, που είναι κεκλιμένη και ίση με την συνολική ζήτηση διαιρεμένη δια του αριθμού των επιχειρήσεων για κάθε τιμή. Παρά τη μεγάλη αναγνωσιμότητα και το ζωηρό ακαδημαϊκό ενδιαφέρον που έχουν προκαλέσει τα σχετικά άρθρα μου, αντιλαμβάνομαι κάποιες δυσκολίες σχετικά με την αποδοχή της αναθεωρημένης θεωρίας και ίσως ακόμη και την κατανόησή της, λόγω φυσιολογικού εθισμού και προσκόλλησης στην παραδοσιακή θεωρία και τη μεθοδολογία της. Αυτό το άρθρο, ωστόσο, καταδεικνύει τα λάθη αυτά της συμβατικής θεωρίας χρησιμοποιώντας τη μεθοδολογία της ίδιας της συμβατικής θεωρίας, χωρίς να εμπλέκεται στο αμφιλεγόμενο ζήτημα της οριζόντιας ή κεκλιμένης καμπύλης ζήτησης της επιχείρησης.<br><br><b>English abstract:</b> My research so far, which reveals fundamental mistakes of the conventional (neoclassical) economic theory, is based mainly on the (wrong) perception of this theory for the price taking and the horizontal demand curve for the firm, using instead the correct individual demand curve for the firm, which is sloping and equal to the total demand divided by the number of firms for each price. Despite the great readability and vivid academic interest that my relevant papers have caused, I feel some difficulties regarding the acceptance of the revised theory and perhaps even its understanding, due to physiological addiction and adherence to traditional theory and methodology. This article, however, demonstrates these mistakes of conventional theory using the methodology of the conventional theory itself, without getting involved in the controversial issue of the horizontal or sloping demand curve for the firm.<br>","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134444740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The many, many myths created by Joan Robinson about J M Keynes and the General Theory, starting in the early 1930’s, have become embedded in the history of macroeconomics.
These myths, such as the claim that Joan Robinson worked closely with Keynes on the writing of the General Theory, that R. Kahn developed, explained and taught Keynes the theory of the multiplier, that there was no IS-LM model in the General Theory, that J. Hicks originated and developed the IS-LM model in the April,1937 issue of Econometrica, that fundamental uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty related to Keynes’ Evidential Weight of the Argument concept from his A Treatise on Probability (1921) ,was the central foundation of the General Theory, that Kalecki had written a version of Keynes’s General Theory in 1933-1935 in Polish that covered Keynes’s Theory of Effective Demand, that Keynes had not taken the 20 minutes necessary to learn the theory of value, that there was no formal, mathematical, microeconomic foundations in the General Theory, that Keynes did not understand the purpose of the General Theory and had to have it explained to him, that the General Theory was written as a chain of literary statements without the use of mathematical analysis, that Keynes was a Marshallian who had destroyed all of his mathematical analysis in the General Theory before publishing it, etc., are all simply the silly, stupid, foolish unexamined assertions of a mathematically illiterate economist who, due to her extreme mathematical and statistical ignorance, could not pass a sixth grade grammar school introduction to elementary algebra.
An examination of a 2019 paper by G. Akerlof shows how deeply these myths of Joan Robinson have become entrenched in the history of macroeconomics. It is simply not possible for economics to be called scientific, much less a science, given the extent of this mythology, of which I have barely scratched the surface in my discussions about examples above. I can find no claim made about J M Keynes or the General Theory made by Joan Robinson in her lifetime that is not at least partially or completely false.
{"title":"On the Catastrophic Impact That the Many Myths Created by Joan Robinson Between 1936 and 1980 About J M Keynes and the General Theory Have Had on Macroeconomic History","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3739898","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739898","url":null,"abstract":"The many, many myths created by Joan Robinson about J M Keynes and the General Theory, starting in the early 1930’s, have become embedded in the history of macroeconomics.<br><br>These myths, such as the claim that Joan Robinson worked closely with Keynes on the writing of the General Theory, that R. Kahn developed, explained and taught Keynes the theory of the multiplier, that there was no IS-LM model in the General Theory, that J. Hicks originated and developed the IS-LM model in the April,1937 issue of Econometrica, that fundamental uncertainty, as opposed to the uncertainty related to Keynes’ Evidential Weight of the Argument concept from his A Treatise on Probability (1921) ,was the central foundation of the General Theory, that Kalecki had written a version of Keynes’s General Theory in 1933-1935 in Polish that covered Keynes’s Theory of Effective Demand, that Keynes had not taken the 20 minutes necessary to learn the theory of value, that there was no formal, mathematical, microeconomic foundations in the General Theory, that Keynes did not understand the purpose of the General Theory and had to have it explained to him, that the General Theory was written as a chain of literary statements without the use of mathematical analysis, that Keynes was a Marshallian who had destroyed all of his mathematical analysis in the General Theory before publishing it, etc., are all simply the silly, stupid, foolish unexamined assertions of a mathematically illiterate economist who, due to her extreme mathematical and statistical ignorance, could not pass a sixth grade grammar school introduction to elementary algebra.<br><br>An examination of a 2019 paper by G. Akerlof shows how deeply these myths of Joan Robinson have become entrenched in the history of macroeconomics. It is simply not possible for economics to be called scientific, much less a science, given the extent of this mythology, of which I have barely scratched the surface in my discussions about examples above. I can find no claim made about J M Keynes or the General Theory made by Joan Robinson in her lifetime that is not at least partially or completely false.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129888927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：