Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Introduction: Mathematics in Economics--No, No or Yes, Yes, Yes?

Author(s): Paul A. Samuelson


Source: The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Nov., 1954), p. 359
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1925885
Accessed: 26/05/2010 04:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of
Economics and Statistics.

http://www.jstor.org
MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS: DISCUSSION
OF MR. NOVICK'S ARTICLE *
INTRODUCTION: MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS-
NO, NO OR YES, YES, YES?
Paul A. Samuelson

EDITOR Harris has given me the fun of Then to balance Jan Tinbergen's sage di-
acting as Master of Ceremonies for the gression on substantive methodological issues
slugfest set off by David Novick's blast against and David Champernowne'scounsels on pres-
mathematical economics. Seven economists entation, I follow with Robert Solow's reflec-
have replied to Novick and according to my tions on the proper barnyard relations between
reckoning the score stands: For Novick, 7 epsi- mathematical economists and literary econo-
Ions; against him, 8 minus 7 epsilons. (Only mists. (My dictionary defines "literary econo-
Solow refuses to concede even an epsilon). Of mist" as "euphemism for non-mathematical
course, the scores refer to those who struck economist.")
at Seymour Harris's lure: one of the two non- Robert Dorfman and Tjalling Koopmans
respondents to his invitation might in vehe- have taken time out from their researches at
mence have overpowered the seven defenders the frontier of economic science to set straight
of mathematics. what they conceive to be some of Novick's
In what order should I arrange the replies? misunderstandings. Their contributions per-
Who is to throw the first stone? Since Law- haps illustrate that chains of controversy do
rence Klein directly takes issue with the ill- not obey the biological laws of logical chains:
concealed major premise underlying Novick's error may beget truth.
theorems (Basic axiom: mathematical econom- A master of ceremonies should stay out of
ics is and has been fruitless in economics), he the act. I have not considered it proper to cor-
leads off. Because James Duesenberry and rect the mathematic language slip in Novick's
John Chipman betray the most sympathy for sole equation, any more than it would be proper
the view that more current effort should go into to correct the literary slip in his last sentence.
empirical research even at the cost of less effort But doffing my megaphone, I have added at
applied to theorizing, their views come next.1 the end a few personal thoughts.

I. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS


L. R. Klein

Criticismof the use of mathematicalmethods Novick pictures the mathematical economist,


in economics has frequently been raised. Mr. or more generally social scientist, as a charla-
Novick brings us once again to this question, tan and dilettante. It is true that some may
but possibly his emphasis is different. Others use mathematics to confuse, bewilder, or im-
have pleaded for better communication, more press others, but it would be an extremely nar-
realism, or more flexibility on the part of row viewpoint that overlooked the constructive
mathematical economists. To some extent, efforts of those using the mathematical method.
I should like to counter his arguments with in-
* The Editor asked a number of outstanding economists
to discuss the place of mathematics in economics, offering
dications of the positive accomplishments of
Dr. Novick's article as a basis of discussion. Professor Sam- the mathematicalmethods and, indeed, to make
uelson kindly agreed to comment on the whole symposium. a case for its unlimited future development.
1 I note with interest and surprise that at least 6 of
the 8 defenders of mathematical theorizing are themselves
I shall be mainly concerned with the use of
outstanding empirical researchers. the mathematical method in economics because
[ 359 1

Potrebbero piacerti anche