作者:
忍不住说句(蜀.谷.彩.株) [111:3108], 13:29:11 02/01/2001:
青争在华岳上贴出的文章严重失实
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
所有跟贴·加跟贴·江河论坛主页
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
送交者: 郑玄 于 February 01, 2001 11:56:23:[江河论坛(Bihong.Com)]
1。所谓INCREASING RETURN，经济学早于BRIAN ARTHUR不知道
多少时间就在研究了，比如生产中的学习曲线，能够让多生产
者的边际成本抵减，从而造成先入市场并占有大份额的公司
的垄断。这一点，也是贸易保护主义的原因之一，对幼稚工业的
保护，就是出于INCREASING RETURN(所谓的报酬递增)的理论。
看看马歇尔的经济学原理，也就是古典经济学的祖师在一八九零年写的书，
这个概念早就在里面了。而这还是对在这以前经济学研究的总结。
2。BRIAN ARTHUR的文章，我本人也读过。
他的贡献，在于研究一种特殊的INCREASING RETURN，在经济
学里面叫NETWORK EXTERNALITY。这种INCREASING RETURN，
会造成某个制式，比如DVD的STANDARD的垄断。这的确是当
时的一个大贡献。青争所转的文章故意把这个贡献，
和经济学主流对立起来。而他那本书描述的情况，也就是
某些人对你的观点不太看得起，这是任何行业的讨论都不可
避免的。不能把去某个大学搞一次讲座，下面的人反应不佳
看成，看成“主流经济学”总体对这个新观点反对。搞NETWORK
EXTERNALITY的，也远不止BRIAN ARTHUR， PAUL DAVID等人
也早就搞了。
我们每一个经济学家，都在尽可能发现现在经济学里面的不足
和错误，并考虑自己的时间限制后，去攻某一个论题。这
在大多数情况下根本不是什么对经济学的反动，或者革命。
就和物理学里面除了爱因
斯坦的贡献可以算是“革命”以外，有个物理发现就算是革命
么？当然不是。BRIAN ARTHUR的贡献丰富了主流经济学，我从来
没听说经济学界当他是另立山头搞出新学派的。他所研究的
命题，不仅被TIROLE对主流经济学中IO的总结所接纳，也进入
到中初级的主流经济学教科书里面。
如果把研究经济学里面的INCREASING RETURN的人叫作对经济学
的反判，那么现在MIT， STANFORD，BERKELEY等各处恐怕大多数
经济学家都得算叛逆经济学家，因为很少有人没研究过INCREASING
RETRUN的，这不是很可笑的么。八十年代后以MIT的KURGMAN
为代表的贸易理论，完全是建立在INCREASING RETURN基础上的，
这难道不是要说，八十年代以后所有的贸易理论贡献的作出者，
现在遍布各主流经济学系别，全是判逆经济学家了么？
3。我不太喜欢的，就是这种描述方式，这种描述方式可以把
一本书变成BEST-SELLER。因为它绘声绘色，出神入化，好象
真的又出现了什么新奇迹，一个人孤身挑战一个学科，当孤立无
援的时候得到物理学和生化的帮助，云云云云。说他从物理学
和生化中得到灵感，注意到了这个问题，可能是真的。其实经济
学从来就没有反对你从别的学科里面得到灵感，不久前还有经
济学家来我们系里面讨论鱼群的运动和消费行为呢。可说什么
孤身挑战一个学科，如何发现“全新”观点，就是为了卖座了。
4。我感到奇怪的是，经济学家也是科学研究者，就和物理学家
也是科学研究者一样。科学知识的增长，从长远来看，和我们
日常生活的认识增长过程也是一样的。为什么总要搞出仿佛
有一个“超科学”在那里，把那个或那些“超科学”的研究方
法当成“正信”研究方法呢？生化还在搞实验为主，你能说
没有物理那样的大理论体系，就不是“科学”，或就是“前科学”？
经济学还没有能解决某些问题，就和物理和工程还没有研究
出把人如何送到太阳系以外一样，你能说，看你不是搞物理的，
现在还不知道把人送到太阳系以外，所以是“伪科学”么？
没有能解决，就要尽力去解决么。如果经济学已经能解决所有
经济现象中的问题，那就是只有经济学教师，没有经济学研究
者了。
*** 回应主帖
*** 返回论坛
跟帖目录:
- 转贴说明 - 忍不住说句 13:37:11 02/01/2001
- 呵呵，也夸一句！ - 倚天 14:30:11 02/01/2001
原 帖 [ 0 ]
转贴说明
郑玄不知在犯什么嘎，闷在江河，不在这儿出声，忍不住想看个争论，我就在这儿多此一举了，先向郑玄叨唠个过。
PS 这个忍不住说句是个固定ID，不是蒙面浑水摸鱼，敬请斑竹高抬贵手则个
[ 1:170 ] 忍不住说句(蜀.谷.彩.株) - 13:37:11 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 1 ]
一个可爱的经济学博士生的无知妄语,仅此而已.
"经济学家也是科学研究者，就和物理学家也是科学研究者一样。"他
只不过是在西方教育下守着斯大林的"社会科学也是科学"的教条主义
并把自己研究的方面非要挂靠到现在炙热可手的科学上为自己的海阔
天空高谈阔论找个令人信服的基础而已.
他根本不明白自然科学的真正基础和唯一的判据是实验而不是数学和
逻辑,而这才是科学建立的最根本的基石.经济管理等学科虽然也在西
方被广泛地冠以"SCIENCE"的名称但是却很少有人用"SCIENTIFIC"这
一修饰语来给自己装门面,因为二者用不同的褒贬色彩.在中文,科学
因名词和形容词形式等同,在实际中也被常常交叉来使用也就难怪有
郑玄这样囫囵吞枣式的人物的特殊理解.
经济管理学科都涉及到能够反馈并能改变结果的自在的人类与其中,
没有人和人的活动,也就不存在社会管理和社会经济,但自然科学的对
象并不以人类的存在和介入为前提的,它研究的是客观自为之物.这也
就是为什么社会管理等学科根本不能算做是有形容词含义的中文中科
学一类的根本原因.
其实何止经济管理,连逻辑和数学都不是自然科学也根本不是科学,
二者是思维学科里的两大分支,是研究思维工具和符号工具的两个领
域,本身就不是科学,明显地各自存在着本身无法克服的局限,类似有
"逻辑是不可战胜的"和罗素悖论的东西来表明其非科学性和两难问
题,而建立在实验基础上的自然科学是不允许类似的情况发生的,一个
自然科学理论如果存在类似的问题是根本无法接受的.
以为用了点数学逻辑,以及以逻辑为基础的思维方法诸如模型等等,就
想当然地可以冠以科学和科学研究的称号,那是肤浅的旧文人思维模
式.人类理性知识分自然科学,社会学科(管理学科等也可以划入其中)
和思维学科三大分支,不要把国内的将数学划入理科的惯例想当然地
将其划归自然科学,而那本身就是不理性的小学生思维水平.
数学就是数学,仅是一套符号逻辑和思维工具,仅是一套自洽的逻辑体
系,它只对自己和逻辑负责而不会去强求实验的认可,也不会被实验所
推翻.以为会使用数学工具就找到了科学护身符那是十分幼稚的想法,
经济学家不是科学研究者，和作为科学研究者的物理学家有着本质的
不同,这种攀亲恐怕本身就是为了某种特殊的目的.
[ 2:1759 ] Leo(沈.埠.赤.松) - 14:29:45 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 2 ]
仅此而已？
今天心情不错也就跟你一贴吧。
经济学当然是介于自然科学和社会科学之间的。您唠叨什么？讲理不要带上个人好么？标题特臭！
“无知妄语”？回去看着您家的镜子对自己说吧！或者陪个好话请人家回来？？
[ 4:188 ] 倚天(沈.宫.绿.兰) - 14:57:44 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 4 ]
打住打住
LEO标题不怎么样，但内容还是很值得一看（虽然很明显，我也是被归为“不理性
的小学生思维水平”的一类的^-^），阁下心情真的不错的话，不妨给他来个翻盘
，给他来个全面驳倒。否则这样下去，完全变成意气之争，就不是我想看到的初
衷了。
[ 5:219 ] 忍不住说句(蜀.谷.彩.株) - 15:11:42 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 5 ]
嗯，
那我就不打了。^&^
“我也是被归为“不理性的小学生思维水平”的一类的”
我也是呀，所以很生气嘛！\_/
(BTW，没看出我上贴是来和稀泥的？？我的手艺有这么臭吗？！)
[ 6:159 ] 倚天(沈.宫.绿.兰) - 15:45:28 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 6 ]
^6^
不是你泥瓦匠的手艺臭，是我小学生思维水平
[ 7:40 ] 忍不住说句(蜀.谷.彩.株) - 16:33:32 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 5 ]
Had economics had no use
why did people use Brian Arthur to attack economics? It is only you think some economics is "right", some is "wrong".
The reason for economics finally accepting Increasing Return is not because it is logically right or theoretically right, but that it passed empirical test as convincing carried out by Brian Arthur and some others.
There are many people with similar experience like Mr. Arthur: Nobel winner Gary Becker's theory was more contrercial in 60, 70 than Arthur's. Even after the prize, there is still some opposition. Is this the same attitude for people to deal some new findings?
[ 8:597 ] abcdefg(卫.江.箭.果) - 16:51:31 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 8 ]
it passed empirical test?
Are these test repeatable in the exact same conditions by any
test examinars in any places, like the experiments in natural
sciences? Can you show me one example of this kind? Or are
they more like the Social Survey based on questionare and
statistics?
Surely, economics is useful but you must use them in the right
place and in the right way, not like those so-called "intellectual
class" which is actually the contemporary variants of former
"feudal literatus" to claim them ubiquitious and unconditionally
true. Expecially for a real economic body, all the economic theories
are blind men and they touch and feel the giant elephant - economic
body based on their own feeling and experiences. When you exaggerate
the function of economic theories and ignore the true social
economics, all the words that you spread are just trash and
should be discarded without hesitance. And the usefulness is not
the critirion for the judgement of true or wrong, you may remember
that. And the science also don't care about whether the theories
are useful or not to our society, this is another difference between
science and non-science disciplines. To be a non-science discipline
does not mean it's useless, e.g. libary management.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say new findings,
in science people use discovery to distinguish it from the invention,
perhaps from economic viewpoint, there are something called findings
right between discovery and invention, that's a really great
invention of you guys.
BTW, have you heard any words about the comparability between natural
sciences and economics in western academic society? Is this comparison
from Mr. Zheng his own invention or the exotic?
[ 9:1719 ] Leo(沈.埠.箭.蝉) - 17:32:05 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 9 ]
I am realy bored to talk about such
issues, but let me say it another times:
How do you test quantum mechanics? Do you use the same criterion as in Newtonian mechanics? Do you even care about the quantities interested in the newtonian mechanics? Do you have the repeated experiments in the newtonian sense?
How do you conduct genetics research? When researchers relate certain illness with certain gene, does the gene (for different people with same illness) have exactly the same pattern? When peole claim come medicine can cure some illness, does it mean it will cure all the people with that desease?
Please don't be that narrow-minded: the ("repeated experiments") have different meanings in different fields. You are certainly entitled to your own view, whatever it is. However, if you just stick on your own field and don't listen and learn what other fields are about, sooner or later, you just make yourself ignorant to people in those fields and I don't think they would bother to "communicate" with you.
If you are a engineer, let me ask you one simple question: the light bulb production right now should be quite standard, when we say a light bulb last for 40,000 hours, what does that mean? Remember, this is a purely engineer question. Do any two bulbs giving the exactly the same duration? Though it seems that they have completely the same initial condition.
I said that before, I am quite dispointed in you recently. Not because your bias against economics, but it seems you lost your independent thinking: you are just against something (like YieMaoZi) for no reason. I don't think you were such kind person before, and I did treat you as a net friend before though I didn't follow or say something in most of your posts. What I said don't mean anything -- it is my own feeling and it bear no relevance to you.
As for your last question: I don't think Western people care such question at all. Even I have met quite few great physists, mathematicians, economists, ...., I don't have many chances to observe they talk "sciences" beyond their own fields. Maybe some genius want to be philosophers at the mean time. So I would be very surprized if some Western professors prove or deny "eonomics" by relating it to natural sciences. On the other hand, I won't be surprized that Chinese people relate the two to prove "economics" (as Mr Zheng or I did), just like I won't be surprized to see that some Chinese people strongly deny "economics".
[ 10:2427 ] abcdefg(卫.江.绛.帆) - 22:06:10 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 10 ]
People are tired by you economists too!
"How do you test quantum mechanics? Do you
use the same criterion as in Newtonian
mechanics? Do you even care about the
quantities interested in the newtonian
mechanics? Do you have the repeated
experiments in the newtonian sense?" What a
stupid comparison for economics! You really
know the difference between Newtonian mechanics
and Quantum mechanics? Or just say the experiment
designed to verify the theory? Experiment in
physics has its own sense, this is the first time
that I heard some say the experiment criterion
in physics changing with different theories. Tell
us what's the difference between them, I really
wanna know what kind of new findings you have reached.
Your words sound more like Master Li Hongzhi talk
about 11-D space of physics.
"the ("repeated experiments") have different meanings
in different fields", or I see, you may tell me that
repeatable experiments are not really repeatable, but
why do you still use the same words. I don't know
repeatability has other explanation and understanding
in economics. So there should be no economic laws in
economics since everything looks different. Since you
guys talk about mathematics and physics, there must be
some common properties between them. I don't say anything
really same or samiliar just the comparison itself.
Arrogance is the previledge of economists coming here, you
can find their words and tell their flavors. I don't want to
"communicate" with these guys either, because I don't think
I can get any valuable knowledge from them. What they present
here are just some names and nouns, and all their thought
are just right sitted on the bench maded by westerners.
Why don't you guys go little further, challenge the bases
of those theories and get new ideas from nature and society
like most great guys have done in economics, not just compared
with other disciplines in a radiculous way .
Zheng Xuan and you never talk about Engineering, and remember
one thing: physicists will not let Engineers think in the
same way as them. Do you know their some standards for the error
analysis such as experiment level and industrial level, not only
for the light bulb and also for chemical solvents, electronic
devices. You are just showing the shortcoming in your own thinking,
because physicists know their conclusions are just for physics
ideal and lab-level precision experiments, that's the reason why
Engineering is independent from physical sciences. However, look
at Mr. Zheng and yourself, can you guys stop instructing like a
advisor on the real-world China Economics, which is actually beyond
your business in academic sense? Is economics a science or an
Engeering, from your behaviors and presentation, it seems that it's
both but this will never happen to physics.
Remmember this board is called "SHI SHI", so the economics people
concered is China Contemporary Economics, which have no answers in
your textbook. If you speak logically and in the right way, no one
will criticize you guys.
Actually, in the real sense, social sciences are much difficult than
natural sciences because of the complex object they investigate.
So that's why they are more qualitative than quantative, if it can be
quantatively described, it means that it's not really complicate. It's
you guys behaviors here exaggerating the function of mathematics and
models which are more familiar to those majoring in natural sciences
and engineering give people the bad impression of economists.
If you think that I am just againt YieMaoZi for nothing and with no
reason, okay, that's fine. I don't wanna explain more. The increasing
miserable events in China are just the "natural" results without any
effects from the whole environment, YieMaoZi's stupid comments will
show the greatness and mercy of Chinese people in such an open discussion
place.it's really really stupid, that's the only word I can put forward.
[ 11:3909 ] Leo(沈.埠.箭.槐) - 00:10:19 02/02/2001 *** 回 帖
原 帖 [ 0 ]
呵呵，也夸一句！
“我不太喜欢的，就是这种描述方式，这种描述方式可以把一本书变成BEST-SEL
LER。因为它绘声绘色，出神入化，好象真的又出现了什么新奇迹，一个人孤身挑
战一个学科，当孤立无援的时候得到物理学和生化的帮助，云云云云。”绘声绘
色，出神入化，才引人入胜啊！中国现在太少科普类的读物了！
你的更平实准确的介绍也很好！
[ 3:297 ] 倚天(沈.河.黄.鸟) - 14:30:11 02/01/2001 *** 回 帖
声 明: 文 责 自 负。