Except it’s nothing like that. Not even remotely comparable. And anyway, anyone who criticizes economic theory reminds of this.
See, we can all play that stupid game. Too bad it has nothing to do with the actual result.

Please take more care when pulling BS analogies out of thin air next time. Like, pick one that’s at least funny or something.

An ingenious approach. For some reason it reminds me of this.

I take it, maybe wrongly, Tracy W. is an advanced student. It would not surprise me if he aces all his courses. However, in asking me to explain the connection between 19th century physics and neoclassical utility theory in more detail, he is asking me to do some work. I still don’t feel like doing the work.

I haven’t read it lately, but I consider Varian’s review an embarrassment for Varian. And, yes, I am especially focusing on that part that Chris Edmond does (“Mirowski’s general cluelessness”) and does not (“Irrespective of”) say he wants to argue about.

I take it that Mirowski demonstrated that the structure of utility theory is taken from physics. Once sensitized by Mirowski, I’ve noticed the claims to physics-like science in, say, Walras myself. (By the way, “Amateurs borrow, professionals steal.” I forget where I am stealing that from.)

Mirowski wrote a history. Any primer in his book on physics and economics is as needed for the history. As I recall, Mirowski says that he abstracts from a transformation in commodity space needed to take account of the income constraint. Whether or not Varian understands Hamiltonians, he (unjustly) failed to note Mirowski’s caveat.

(I thought Mirowski made this point that he was writing history, not theory, somewhere or other. Through Google books, I was only able to locate some mocking of Varian’s textbook in Mirowski’s “The Goalkeeper’s Anxiety at the Penaly Kick” or whatever.)

I think that Mirowski adequately documents that mathematicians and physicists questioned early neoclassicals about integrability and conservation laws. His bit about Gibbs questioning Fisher is admitedly labeled as speculative. Perhaps some day specialists will find documentary evidence on this point.

I find Chris Edmond’s comment about Wade Hands odd. I first brought his paper up in a response focusing on a question from Tracy W. I also cited my mention of it as an answer to “notsneaky”. So once again, Chris Edmond seems to be getting into a dander on the part of others.

Anyways, I take it that Hands has demonstrated that utility theory does contain conservation laws, discussed hardly at all, if ever, by neoclassical economists. Hands clarifies how to account for income effects. Although Hands does also write about history, I take this clarification to be about the structure of the textbook theory, not early history. Chris Edmond does not comment on the substance of Hands’ paper.

Perhaps I ought to point out that nowhere in these comments have I suggested that neoclassical economics ought to be rejected because of the supposed absurdity of these conservation laws. Nor have I said otherwise.

I do find the logical implications of the structure of utility theory in tension with some beliefs and claims of neoclassical economists. (By the way, contrary to the impression one might get from John Quiggin, revealed preference theory failed to live up to Samuelson’s stated goals. At least that is a claim, both Mirowski and Hands accept. They cite a study by Stanley Wong, which I have not properly read.)

Where do Varian or other textbook writers discuss the conceptual structure of utility theory, as it relates to the Slutsky and integrability conditions? (My question in comment 20 remains unanswered.)

Let me re-iterate my major claim: Mirowski is a neccessary part of any current and informed conversation about physics and neoclassical utility theory.

Basically what it says is that if you observe a demand function in the real world which has certain properties then there is some preferences which “rationalize” (again, in the economic sense of the word, so “purposeful” would probably be better for the sake of semantics) it. Or in other words, even if the individual isn’t truly rational (purposeful) but instead behaves according to some heuristics or whatever, from the modeling stand point she is equivalent to some other person, who is rational, with some preferences. Which means that you can still make predictions and all that. So a lot of “irrational” behavior is not really a problem for economic theory. In other words as long as there’s method in madness we’re good to go.

I introduced the allusion to Schey’s book by writing “div, grad, curl and all that”. I don’t need to look it up on Amazon, I have it sitting on my shelf right next to Spivak on manifolds.

You just said “The mathematics needed here is that of div, grads, and curls. I don’t know that I’m inclined to explain further” in a way that pissed me off. If I tried to exclude you from a discussion about general equilibrium or game theory by suggesting you don’t know enough about topology or measure theory, you’d be pissed off too.

Varian’s critique of the Mirowski can be boiled down these paragraphs, both from page 595 of his review:

“Much of Mirowski’s argument about the defects
of the neoclassical formulation of utility
has the following form: “A neoclassical economist
says X. A natural extension of this is Y.
But Y is ridiculous. Therefore, X is ridiculous.”
However, in most cases, a more accurate conclusion
from this argument is that Mirowski’s
“natural extension” is ridiculous.”

and

“Mirowski’s claim that neoclassical economics
is “incoherent” because of the misappropriation
of the energy concept is alrnost entirely based
on this sort of argument. Over and over again
he claims that conservation of energy is an inherent
aspect of the physical concept of energy,
and that this sort of conservation principle is
not valid for utility. To Mirowski, this implies
that utility is not an intellectually coherent concept.
To anyone who understands neoclassical
economics this simply shows that utility is not
energy.”

The discussion about integrability conditions arises later when Varian is pointing out Mirowskis’s general cluelessness about neoclassical economics. Irrespective of the merits of his particular criticisms of Mirowski’s presentation of integrability theory, I think Varian’s general criticism of the whole enterprise stands. The online reviews by customers at Amazon and Barnes & Nobel simply do not address Varian’s general criticism.

And finally, I first read Wade Hand’s article on Mirowski as an undergraduate in the early 1990s shortly after the Duke conference volume was published. I didn’t need you to draw it to my attention.

But again. So what? Even granted that Varian missed some footnote I think the broader jist of Varian’s review is correct. Just because both physics and economics have gradients in it, don’t mean that economics proceeds by stealing inappropriate ideas from physics.

I wouldn’t take personal correspondence or conversation – as referenced in 22 – to be an adequate basis for judging whether or not Varian understands Hamiltonian constraints either, unless it was quite extensive. It’s quite possible that you two talked past each other or that he misunderstood you (hmm…). Without more details and context it’s hard to give any weight to your claim.

Also when I used the adjective “interesting” in 23, I wasn’t referring to Mirowski in particular but to the field of HET in general.

Finally, this is just obviously part of your nefarious plot to ban calculus from economics and replace it with tedious linear algebra of corn and iron matrices. Isn’t that stolen from somewhere too?

The B&N reviewer and myself have already pointed out text in Mirowski’s book, ignored by Varian, that demonstrates Varian to be incorrect.

Varian’s review points out that Mirowski’s argument is fallacious. Why don’t you try explaining in your own words why Varian is wrong. I’m not sure what standing I should give to Amazon or Barnes & Noble reviewers who don’t actually provide any counter-arguments themselves.

And don’t sneer about div, grad, curl and all that. It’s pathetic.

Robert – somehow I’m not surprised that you don’t feel inclined to explain further.

It also seems odd that the second paragraph in the 23rd comment is answered in the text referring to Hands in the 20th and 22nd comment.

I find that a reviewer at Barnes and Nobel says, “Varian’s Review a Gross Injustice. Hal Varian has never tried actually addressing a single issue raised by Dr. Mirowski. Instead, Dr. Varian ignored a footnote and appendix in order to pretend Mirowski was ignorant of a trivial mathematical point. But what most needs to be said here doesn’t concern Mirowski’s critique of neoclassical economics—brilliant, scathing, hilarious though it be…”—Dave Tarpley

But I can’t do the same with the equations you give to calculate utility. Plus you have so far given three different equations for utility – but there’s no reason to think that solving one equation would give you an answer to plug into another equation for utility.

And as for your equating the concepts, I still don’t follow. I think you are mixing up two different concepts. “Energy is conserved” has a different meaning to that of a “conservative vector field”. A “conservative vector field” is a statement about the mathematical properties of that field. I am reaching the limits of my knowledge of vector calculus here, but I presume when you say a conservative vector field you mean the standard economic assumption that if a person has a utility function of the form u(x) then u’(x) > 0 and u’‘(x)

It would seem that we UQ economists are as one when it comes to Mirowski.