On 4/12/2011 3:16 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In reply to Pat Gunning (below):
>
> I doubt that we can share the same concept of models because I would regard it as anachronistic to suggest that Say, Mill or Bagehot had such a thing as 'a model'.
Mary, I did not claim that Say, Mill or Bagehot had models. That is
DeLong's characterization. My first message was a critique of models and
modeling. My second was an effort to figure out why Roy would claim that
my conception of models is out of date.
When DeLong mentioned Say, etc., I simply assumed that he had something
like a Prescott-type model, which is mathematical, in mind. The idea of
a Prescott-type model is what I was referring to. I am sure that you
regard that as a model.
But now that I think about it, perhaps Roy does not regard these as
models. Maybe he has some definition of a model in mind that corresponds
to what DeLong had in mind when he referred to Say, Mill and Bagehot.
Perhaps he is one of those economists who, in your terms, "tend to use
the word 'model' to apply loosely to theories, laws, system-wide
accounts (see below)." If so, then I suppose his definition of a model
differs from both of ours. But then why would he use your work as a
reference?
No doubt, to someone who is willing to devote a book to the subject of
models and modeling, any brief statement by me about a model would seem
incomplete. The only way we could verify that we do or do not share the
same concept of models would be for us to communicate more about the
subject. Since I think that trying to model an economy or, for that
matter an individual choice, is a waste of time and symptomatic of a
cancer in the body of economists, there is not much point in my saying
anything more about the subject. It is sufficient to note that my
statement about sharing the same concept had nothing to do with your
research. It was an effort to make sense of Roy's comment.
> My research suggests that the term, as introduced, and largely used in the history of economics refers to small, manipulable, working objects (a diagram, a set of equations, a set of accounts, and so forth). The term model has very limited applicability in discussing the practice of economics before 1870 and only becomes really useful for discussions of 20thC economics. I discuss this history in the draft Chapter 1 of my forthcoming book mentioned by Pat Gunning below: The World in the Model (CUP, now 2011). The other work that Roy Weintraub kindly pointed to (in his post) is primarily concerned with the function of models: how these little working objects are used in economics, what economists can and cannot learn from reasoning with models, and so forth.
This seems reasonable to me. I will wait for Roy to explain his claim
that I "have a view of "models" that is hopelessly confused and at least
a quarter century out of date." Although I am no expert on what is up to
date, if your account fits this characterization, Roy would seem to have
a duty to explain his seemingly derisive remarks.
> It is true that economists nowadays tend to use the word 'model' to apply loosely to theories, laws, system-wide accounts - as well as to models like Hick's IS/LL curves, Fisher's mechanical balance model of his equation of exchange, and so forth. This conflation causes problems for current analysis of models, but does not cause me to see diagrams, self-contained sets of equations, and so forth when I look in Mill's or Bagehot's work.
>
> Mary Morgan
>
> LSE and University of Amsterdam, Currently: Davis Fellow, Princeton University
>
>
> http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/Research/facts/Home.aspx
> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
> http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2009/12/MaryMorganProfessorship.aspx
> <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/Research/facts/Events.htm>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics on behalf of Pat Gunning
> Sent: Mon 11/04/2011 23:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] SHOE: DeLong on Econ Ed
>
>
>
> Roy, you claim that my concept of models is confused and out of date. I
> simply followed what I understood to be DeLong's definition. DeLong
> referred to models by Prescott, Say, Mill, Bagehot, Wicksell, Fisher,
> Hicks, Metzler, Friedman, Tobin--Keynes. I merely used the term "models"
> in what I perceived to be the same way.
>
> I am not in a good position to find the references you describe.
> However, I was able to download two recent papers by Mary Morgan and it
> seems to me that she uses the term in more or less the same way that
> DeLong and I have. Please tell me more specifically what you have in
> mind. An internet reference would be best for me.
>
> For some elaboration on my message, please see my reply to Sumitra Shah.
>
> Models and Modelling in Economics
> Mary S. Morgan* and Tarja Knuuttila**
> *LSE& University of Amsterdam
> **University of Helsinki
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1499975
>
> # /The World in the Model./ (Forthcoming CUP, 2010, under final revision)
> Chapter 1: "Modelling as a Method of Enquiry" link here
> <http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/pdf/Morgan/Morgan%20Chap1%20Modelling%20as%20a%20Method%20of%20Enquiry.pdf>
>
> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2011 2:04 PM, E. Roy Weintraub wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Pat Gunning<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> What I find remarkable about the DeLong's comment that Humberto posted is
>>> his implicit view that students should learn MODELS. The real lesson of
>>> recent events, it seems to me, is that in spite of 50 years of teaching
>>> models; there is no model that matches the reality that was experienced.
>>>
>> What I find remarkable is that Pat Gunning, and perhaps some others on
>> this list, have a view of "models" that is hopelessly confused and at
>> least a quarter century out of date.
>>
>> For a short reading guide, Pat and others might consult:
>>
>>
>> Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science by
>> Mary Morgan and Margaret Morrison (eds.) 1999
>> "Models" (2008) by Mary S. Morgan in The New Palgrave Dictionary of
>> Economics, 2nd edition, eds: S.N. Durlauf and L.E. Blume (Palgrave
>> Macmillan), online.
>> Models: The Third Dimension of Science by de Chadarevian and Hopwood (2004)
>> Science Without Laws: Model Systems, Cases, and Exemplary Narratives
>> by Creager, Lunbeck and Wise (eds.) 2007
>>
>> Since Morgan is a past President of HES, one would have thought that
>> her work was fully known by all in HES, but I guess not.
>>
> --
> Pat Gunning
> Professor of Economics
> Melbourne, Florida
> http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
>
--
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
|
