Yes on Samuelson and Marshall. Reason? JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC If one su

Yes on Samuelson and Marshall. Reason?

JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC

If one subscribes to the error of justificationism, the method legitimizes the theory. If one subscribes to critical rationalism, the method of theorizing is irrelevant, and the ability of the theory to withstand criticism is its only meaningful test of truth content.

The problem of ‘mathiness’ is that without reduction to subjectively testable sequence of operational statements, we cannot state that our statements are existentially possible.

I usually recommend people who understand economics and want to learn to discuss it, read and follow Karl Smith’s writing, because he writes in operational and therefore scientific terms. And that style is the reason he has provided insights that others have previously missed. (He writes less now unfortunately. I would love to see him on a talking head show.)

And why does Karl write in Operational terms? Because he has non-trivial knowledge of technology. And that’s what software teaches you to do. To avoid the problem of mathiness.

Cheers