[ExI] Physics versus psychology

[Richard Loosemore]

Dan wrote:
> While I don't agree with Bill's point here, economists as economists are not 
> really psychologists, are they? In fact, here I'd agree with Mises, Robbins, 
> etc. that economics is a logic of action and not psychology -- that economic 
> laws are not psychological in nature.

Bit of a can of worms, that one.

Economics boils down to the collective behavior of various Actors, each 
of which follows its own logic (which actually means its own 
*psychology*).  An awful lot of economics is about guessing what kind of 
"utility function" these Actors are using ... but that term "utility 
function" is really just a code word for psychology.

Problem is, there are (roughly) two schools of thought:  Classical 
Economics, which seeks to pretend that everything is about the analytic 
mathematics of systems that seek optimal states, and Complex Systems 
Economics, which is about the fact that analytic mathematics is just a 
silly fantasy imposed on the field by people with a fetish for math.

One denies that psychology has any important role to play.

So take your pick:  either it is all psychology or it is all math.



Richard Loosemore