----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Mohammed Gani writes: 
 
> 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. 
 
My point was quite simple: People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw 
stones. This would apply to individuals coming from the "hard" sciences who 
are always quick to point out that economics is not a science. I then gave 
some examples of where economics has, in my opinion, a scientific base and 
where the "hard" sciences put up short in this respect. Why this is 
controversial on a site dedicated to the history of economic thought is 
beyond me. 
 
> 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. 
 
The market is both a mechanism and an institution. There is friction in the 
mechanism, but, in the most competitive situation, it is the best mechanism 
for allocating scarce resources efficiently.  
 
Chas Anderson 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]