"I am appalled ... by the extent to which there has been a tendency for economics to become a purely abstract branch of mathematics, no longer to be a political economy concerned with the facts of the real world but an intellectual exercise" (Milton Friedman 1985).  

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Boland" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:07:55 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] ghostly fingers

Bob, I would go further:

Some argue that the culture of mathematics departments has 
overtaken graduate economics to the extent that realism is 
of lesser concern than elegance. I saw this culture first 
hand and when I took graduate mathematics classes as part of 
my graduate education.

LB

On 29-Jul-14 12:48 PM, Robert Cord wrote:
> Dear Martin
>
> Your daughter's professor was and is surely correct. Indeed, it is
> probably not an exaggeration to argue that a mathematics undergraduate has
> an easier time of it at economics graduate level than their economics
> counterpart. This is why we need more history of thought - and I don't
> mean history of mathematics!
>
> As ever
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Tue, July 29, 2014 20:13, Martin Tangora wrote:
>> Disclosure:  I am a (retired) mathematician, and in particular a
>> (retired) teacher of calculus.
>>
>>
>> In my line of work we have all heard of Berkeley's "ghosts of departed
>> quantities," but most of us would probably not know that this witty
>> criticism was published in 1734.  There is a very satisfactory article in
>> Wikipedia on the Berkeley book, The Analyst, that gives plenty of
>> context for the jibe:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that "ghostly fingers" has any connection to this.  As I
>> think some of you already have done, I checked the Google Ngram Viewer for
>> "ghostly fingers" and it does not appear until the 1830s.  There is
>> nothing about "fingers" in the Berkeley discussion.
>>
>> An economics professor told my daughter, whose B.A. was in economics,
>> that grad school in economics was essentially mathematics.  Whether or not
>> that is true, I would have thought that all of you would know the correct
>> definition of the slope of a curve, which involves forming a quotient, and
>> then finding the limit as both members of that fraction tend to zero.  One
>> must strictly avoid actually setting the members to zero, but the limit
>> makes sense anyway.  And Berkeley is witty about it, and can be said to be
>> correct (see the Wiki referenced above), but Berkeley is long gone, and
>> the calculus is still very much with us.
>>
>> On 7/28/2014 10:30 AM, Alain Alcouffe wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the tips
>>> I believed that it was a reference to Berkeley and his "ghosts of
>>> departed quantities" but by this sentence, Berkeley targeted the
>>> infinitesimals (or the calculus) not the law of motion. Besides, I could
>>> not find the expression or an approaching one in Berkeley.. Then I
>>> searched in the 4 letters of Isaac Newton to Bentley - in the third one,
>>> Newton came very close to the idea.. describing a “divine
>>> arm” placing planets ... Anyway I continue to suspect that despite google
>>> search the expression could be found during the 18th century - (possibly
>>> as a joke about the Holy Ghost)
>>> During the 20th century, the expression in relation to Newton appears
>>> in A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers. A History of Man’s Changing Vision of
>>> the Universe, London, Penguin Books, 1959, p. 511. (and also
>>> ghost-fingers)
>>>
>>> On 28/07/2014 14:35, Scot Stradley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't have the quotes at fingertip, but the phrase probably refers
>>>> to Berkeley's critique of the metaphysics of calculus. Newton's method
>>>> of determining the limit involved the use of triangles whose side
>>>> adjacent to the curve was gradually reduced so that the known
>>>> properties of geometry could explain the slope of the curve.  Newton
>>>> lays this out in Book I of the Principia.  Obviously the size of the
>>>> side facing the curve and the area of the triangle were gradually
>>>> reduced-- hence the reference to vanishing quantities.
>>>>
>>>> Scot A. Stradley, Ph.D.
>>>> Professor of Finance
>>>> Offutt School of Business
>>>> Concordia College
>>>> Moorhead, MN 56562
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on
>>>> behalf of Nicholas Theocarakis [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, July
>>>> 27, 2014 6:44 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] ghostly fingers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Alain
>>>> I did a check on Google Books setting time parameters. The phrase
>>>> "ghostly fingers" does not appear before the 19th century.
>>>> This might help.
>>>> Nikos
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alain Alcouffe
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>> In the Methodology of economics, Mark Blaug wrote :
>>>> he was unable to meet the objection of many of his contemporaries that
>>>> the very notion of gravity acting instantaneously at a distance
>>>> without any material medium to carry the force - ghostly fingers
>>>> clutching through the void! - is utterly metaphysical. (cf. snd
>>>> edition, p. 6). Actually Blaug has added several references in
>>>> footnote 2: Toulmin, S., and J. Goodfield. 1963. The Fabric of the
>>>> Heavens.
>>>> London: Penguin Books., pp. 281-2;
>>>> Toulmin and Goodfield, 11965. The Architecture of Matter. London:
>>>> Penguin Books, pp. 217-20;
>>>> Hanson, N. R. 1965. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge
>>>> University Press. pp. 90-1;
>>>> Losee, J. 1972. A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of
>>>> Science. London: Oxford University
>>>> Press., pp. 90-3
>>>> But I could not check any (except Losee). When I read this sentence
>>>> three decades ago, I took  "ghostly fingers" for an allusion to
>>>> Berkeley's Analyst (Criticising "fluxions", Berkeley wrote: May we
>>>> not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?). But working on
>>>> Smith's History of Astronomy, I am afraid I was wrong and Mark Blaug
>>>> did not quote Berkeley at all and could have another author or passage
>>>> in mind. Has anybody a suggestion? (I cannot check Blaug's references
>>>> myself except Losee) best regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin C. Tangora
>> tangora (at) uic.edu
>>
>


-- 
Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC
Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC Canada V5A-1S6
phone: 778-782-4487, web: http://www.sfu.ca/~boland