I had a growing feeling in the later years of my work at the subject that a good mathematical theorem dealing with economic hypotheses was very unlikely to be good economics; and I went more and more on the rules (1) Use mathematics as a shorthand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them until you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life. (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can't succeed in (4), burn (3). This last I did often. (in a letter written in 1906 to A. L. Bowley)
Hey Dan, I've never been here
Hey Dan, I've never been here before. Nice blog.
Reality has a well known left wing bias, as they say. Or as Johann Hari said: "when talking to right wing Americans, you spend hardly any of the time discussing ethics or ideology. You are too busy trying to correct basic factual errors about the world"
Actually all of the climate deniers that I know are left wing, and I think that a lot of the mainstream climate discussion is actually extremely neoliberal (emissions trading is straight out of the Chicago School), so although I appreciate that there are more climate deniers on the right, the picture is more complex than that.
I'm keeping out of the way until the mass paranoid hysteria over these stupid emails is over. I really don't know what to do with such an outpouring of irrationality. I feel like I did in the weeks after Diana died - surrounded by a world gone completely mad. But all credit to Gavin Schmidt- he is doing an incredible job.