----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
[Forwarded on behalf of Robert Goldfarb. -RBE] 
 
 
1. I strongly agree with Brewer's first point (it was in fact my initial 
reaction to Schulz's question) that: 
>  
>"First, isnt this question of full (or perfect) information to do with  
> formalization? To get hard-edged results (even to make problems  
> tractable at all) takes simplifying assumptions - full information,  
> divisibility, continuity of preferences, etc." 
 
2. Gunning's response seems quite consistent with Brewer's point 
 
3. So ,if we buy the argument that simplifying assumptions are  
needed to get anywhere, how can we save Schulz's (now  
seemingly naive) view that the assumption is "funny," and do it in a  
way that is consistent with Boland's comment about Marshall and  
Cambridge critiques? to do this, I propose a "revised Schulz  
question/assertion" 
 
4. Revised SChulz question/assertion: Given that a case can be  
made that simplifying assumptions such as perfect information are  
needed for modelling efforts to make progress, there is the  
following very serious pitfall:  as the modelling assumption  
simplification becomes second nature, those "later generation  
modellers"using it, especially those whose focus is on technique,  
tend to forget the reason the original "big thinkers" adopted the  
simplification, and forget that the idea is to figure out how to  
generalize away from that simplification. (Some of them even come  
to believe the simplification approximately holds!!!)   
 
Do people find this claim plausible, wrong-headed, or what? Would Schulz 
buy it???    
 
Robert Goldfarb 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]