I have argued elsewhere that it is meaningless
to criticize mathematics per se. As Steve Keen puts it, “while it is undeniable
that an inordinate love of mathematical formalism has contributed to some of
the intellectual excesses in economics, generally this reaction is as erroneous
as blaming the piano for the discordant notes of a bad piano player. If
anything should be shot, it is the pianist, not the piano”. His book combines sound
theory (Marx – Schumpeter – Minsky – Keynes) and chaos theory (non-linear differential
equations) to analyze the inherent instability of a monetary economy.
He argues that poor scholarship leads to bad
theory, both regarding the lack of knowledge in the history of economic thought
as well as the lack of proper mathematical training. It is interesting to note
that neoclassical economists are so vain about their unlimited mathematical skills
and reject their critics on the basis that they do not understand math and
therefore aren’t in a position to criticize their work. This can be traced back
to Walras:
“As for those economists who do not know any
mathematics […] let them go their way repeating that ‘human liberty will never
allow itself to be cast into equations’ or that ‘mathematics ignores frictions
which are everything in social sciences’ and other equally forceful and flowery
phrases”
Ironically, Kalecki who was a great
mathematician (see Libânio) was left at the backwaters of economics, which
leads to the conclusion that the neoclassical claim to be scientific does not
hold up to scrutiny. Since he had a Marxist background where classes were the
basic unit of analysis and did not use the conventional tools – equilibrium,
utility and production functions, optimization – he was ignored, as anyone who
doesn’t follow the dogmas will. To put it short, mathematics on itself won’t
take you to the ivory tower of neoclassical economics.
Tony Lawson, trained as a mathematician,
supports Keen’s point that you don’t need to be a bad mathematician to be
critical of economics. Eric Weinstein, in the same vein, proposes Gauge Theory
to deal with economic issues. Evolutionary economics and complexity theory, as
well, provide alternatives based on evolutionary game theory and computer simulation
that are far from nonmathematical and take the social and historical much more
seriously than standard economics.
For every flaw of standard theory there are ancillary
assumptions to save the day, however, as Lakatos argues, this is a sign of a
degenerative scientific research program, one in which the hard core is
constantly being incapable of explaining new phenomena and most effort is
applied at adjusting the ancillary assumptions.
Hence, whether you are enthusiastic of Keen,
Kalecki, Weinstein, Evolutionary Economics, Complexity Theory (or what have you)
you are entitled to say: “don’t shoot me, I’m only the piano”. However, be
aware you won’t be invited to play in the lousy gigs where most of the audience
goes. But, who said the best parties are the most crowded?
