A lesson in language & logic

[Al Schoonmaker]

Since the March issue will soon appear, it’s time to move on to another subject. I’ve enjoyed our debate about poker’s social value, but I’ve been troubled by some people’s misreading of my positions.

I’ll discuss only one example. Several people disagreed with a position that is unquestionably correct because they did not read it carefully. Let me quote just a bit of it.
“For over a century that desire for simplicity caused economists to ignore contradictory evidence and base their work on three ridiculous assumptions.,,
“Yet several generations of economists clung to these absurd assumptions.”
The critically important points are the words “for over a century” and the fact that all of the verbs are in the past tense. Several people said that economists don’t use those assumptions now. A few even said that I hadn’t done my homework by reading certain authorities.
So what?
There is no question at all that from the late 18th century until the 20th most economic theory was based on those assumptions. And you can still read them in many textbooks. Some economists still haven’t gotten the message.
If I wrote, “For thousands of years astronomers believed that the earth was the center of the universe,” no astronomer would disagree. Nor would they say, “You obviously haven’t read Copernicus.”
But astronomers are more open-minded than economists.
If you’re going to disagree with someone, make sure you understand exactly what he has said.
Regards,
Alan

[goofball]

It's a little nit picky but there was only a coherent geocentric model of the universe for about 1800 years before Copernicus and Galileo

[Kim Lee]

Your reply merely asserts the previous article was true with no citations to actual economists or textbooks.

"For over a century that desire for simplicity caused economists to ignore contradictory evidence and base their work on three ridiculous assumptions"
"1. People's primary (or only) motive is to maximize their profits"

No, economists assume people maximize utility. This is enormously different. See the history of economics at
homepage.newschool.edu/~het/essays/margrev/phases.htm.
The word "utility" appears over 100 times. The word "profit" appears only twice - once as "profit-maximizing firm" and once in a reference title.

"In fact, some people have killed themselves by eating chicken soup (or wearing magnetic bracelets, taking food supplements, or some other all-purpose cure) when they needed antibiotics or other serious treatment."

"I most definitely did not state that eating chicken soup kills people."

You invented inaccurate charicatures of Chicken Soup and economists so you could knock down straw-men. Then you gratuitously added:

"You will rarely see engineers make such blunders."
and
"But astronomers are more open-minded than economists."

You have a fixation with economists. Did an economist steal your wife or pee in your cornflakes?

[MEbenhoe]

You just proved his point for him, well done.

[Al Schoonmaker]

The assumption that people or businesses maximize utility is as silly as the assumption that they maximize profit. Playing word games changes nothing.

The essential fact is that they don't try to maximize ANYTHING, any more than poker players try to maximize their profits. Business people and poker players may CLAIM to try for maximimum this or that, but people have a very wide range of motives, and these other motives affect nearly all decisions.

You claimed that I gave no citations. In fact, I have frequently referred to the work of Herbert Simon, my colleague at Carnegie-Mellon University and a winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. He received that prize partly for showing how the assumption of maximization was incorrect.

I find your language and manners troubling, and I have tried to respond politely. You said my article "sucked," and I thanked you for contributing to our debate. Now you make infantile remarks about peeing in cornflakes.

Twoplustwo.com is a polite place. We disagree frequently, but we try to treat each other respectfully. I urge you to follow the norms of these forums.

Regards,

Al

[Kim Lee]

You have a good point. At least Al didn't attack astronomers.

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/chapter5qts.html

By the second century B.C. several geometric models were offered as explanations for planetary motion.

The most accepted opinion … placed a stationary Earth at the center of the entire universe.

However, as early as the fifth century B.C. the Greek atomist Democritus proposed a universe of infinite space [with] … no center,

The followers of Pythagoras suggested a third cosmological possibility. Rather than placing the Earth at the center of all motion, the Earth moved around an immense central fire

Thus by the time of Plato and the Academy, all three ideas usually associated with our modern view of the universe had been proposed: a universe in which the Earth is not unique, a revolving Earth, and a rotating Earth.

[Wally Weeks]

[ QUOTE ]
...people have a very wide range of motives, and these other motives affect nearly all decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps his primary motivation in life is to be agitating.

[ QUOTE ]
I find your language and manners troubling, and I have tried to respond politely. You said my article "sucked," and I thanked you for contributing to our debate. Now you make infantile remarks about peeing in cornflakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing wrong with debating as all parties engaged can benefit, but there's no need to be rude about it. I can only imagine how he behaves at the table. "Nice hand, ass clown! You chased after a pot without correct odds."

Regards,
Wally