ECONOMICS AS ARCHAEOLOGY “I would happily settle for economics being compared to

ECONOMICS AS ARCHAEOLOGY

“I would happily settle for economics being compared to archaeology and our scientific activity placed on a level with that of the archaeologist. It would be a noble analogy.”

“…the veneer of mathematics tends…[T]o dress scientific brilliancies and scientific absurdities alike in the impressive uniform of formulae

and theorems. Unfortunately however, an absurdity in uniform is far more persuasive than an absurdity unclad.” – Schwartz, 1986, p.22.

“Classical real analysis is only one of at least four mathematical traditions within which economic questions can be formalized and discussed mathematically. Non-standard, constructive and computable analyses have been playing their own roles in the formalization and mathematization of economic entities – but mostly within the closure of neoclassical economic theory.”

(NOTE: a) Real analysis, b) non-standard, c) constructive and d) computable – all must be addressed from finitist perspective.)

“In other words, mathematics is about proof. I believe this to be a valid and standard characterization which helps delineate the different `schools’ of mathematics in terms of it”

(NOTE: mathematics is the process of making proofs ‘balances’, not truths (forecasts and testimonies).)