----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Martin C. Tangora wrote: "As a scientist I am deeply disturbed by the 
reckless disregard shown here for 20th century cosmology, paleogeology, 
physics, and evolutionary biology." 
 
If Anderson did show disrespect, it is for him to mend his ways and mind 
his words.  I will just look at a deeper issue. It has central pertinence 
to the issue of institutions. I am not defending Anderson, but I must 
defend economics from the agression natural science. 
 
The classical paradigm in economics arose in a climate of opinion where 
people had unquestioned faith in the notion of natural law. The terms 
mechanism and equilibrium, for example, are borrowed from 'natural 
science'.  The trouble is that economics studies something that has no 
nature, but has a character. It deals with events that have no cause, but 
have reason. The market is not a mechanism, but an institution. There is no 
equilibrium, but there is agreement. Put with the most shocking clarity I 
can think of: natural science studies inanimate objects devoid of life, 
volition, creativity or freedom. 
 
Economics studies activitiees of creative humans, who have the character to 
put nature at their service.  Natural science is much like the study of old 
rocks (paleogeology) while economics is the study of new wealth. Natural 
laws simply cannot stand up to human choices. 
 
For example, nature would urge humans females to breed about 12.4 kids, but 
humans defy the urges of nature, because they posses the freedom of choice, 
which they create by virtue of knowledge and creativity. The result is 
simple: human actions are not natural behavior of dead rocks, and 
principles of natural science do not apply to economic actions. Whoever 
said that quantum something determined 40% of output has in my view not the 
slightest idea of what determines output. Growth of output is not the same 
thing as the growth of weed or algae. It rests on deliberate actions of 
humans who are free not to do what they do, but who enjoy the luxury of 
doing what they are pleased to do. Natural science has no idea what it 
means to deliberate or to agree, to design, to realize what is not real, to 
imagine what does not exist and to create what did not exist. 
 
One big problem is the prior preemption of words by natural science. No 
matter how hard I try to say that reason is very different from cause, and 
that institution is nothing like a mechanism, and that character is the 
opposite of nature, I stand no chance of being understood. As a result, 
people who have no idea that physics has absolutely nothing to offer to 
economics, but indeed much to derail it, will keep giving us advice. 
    
So here is a simple challenege to all natural sciences combined: identify 
the natural law which leads merchants to buy something without an intention 
to consume and to sell something without having produced it. Remember, the 
merchant could not buy something  to sell it again until producers agreed 
to sell to merchants instead of to the final consumers. So, you must also 
explain why buyers would buy from merchants rather than from original 
producers and why producers would sell to merchants instead of directly to 
the final consumers. Warning: the law must be natural. Please use general 
and special theory of relativity, and most especially quantum everything, 
geology, biology and even manology (science of dates) and all of natural 
science. 
 
I am certain natural science cannot deal with this simple thing. We 
economists deal with something far superceding nature: that is known as 
character. It has freedom and creativity. 
 
Mohammed Gani 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]