The blogger is a lecturer in Financial Mathematics at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland.
From Magic, Maths and Money:
I was aware of the "mathiness" discussion initiated by the macro-economist Paul Romer, but have only read the articles because while the discussion was taking place I was finishing of an article for The Mathematical Intelligencer that presents a remarkably similar argument (noting that mathematicians consider a coffee cup and doughnut to be the same)....MORE
Romer's concern is in the field of economic growth - an area I am unfamiliar with - but two related statements caught my attention
For the last two decades, growth theory has made no scientific progress toward a consensus. ... The question posed here is why the methods of science have failed to resolve the disagreement between these two groups.and, postulating on why science has failed to come to a consensus, Romer offers an explanation as "mathiness"
Like mathematical theory, mathiness uses a mixture of words and symbols, but instead of making tight links, it leaves ample room for slippage between statements in natural versus formal language and between statements with theoretical as opposed to empirical content.My article for the Intelligencer is titled "Finance and Mathematics: where is the ethical malaise" and was written in response to a series of articles about the role of mathematics in financial crises. I begin my piece
Discussions of the role of mathematics in finance appearing in The Mathematical Intelligencer can be split into two classes. Marc Rogalski and Jonathan Korman capture a widespread fury at a collapse in commercial ethics while Ivar Ekeland and Peter Haggstrom off er economic facts. The conclusions of Rogalski and Korman can be summarised as that mathematicians should spurn the financial world; Haggstrom and Ekeland point to technocratic solutions, characterised by better regulation. I do not buy into the argument that the problems of finance can be solved by regulations, it is, as both the U.K. and U.S. governments have identified, an ethical problem.
On his sidebar under 'Popular Posts' we see:
Noah Smith recently wrote a “rant” on maths in (macro)economics, which elicited a swift response from Paul Krugman , which in turn prompted...
So channeling Lady Macbeth -"Hie thee hither, That I may pour my spirits in thine ear"- I hie over to Smith's blog, Noahpinion, where the most recent post is:
The Paul Romer "mathiness" debate isn't about mathematical formalism in econ. Romer says:...
And the top recommended 'random post' is
I hear all the time that economists have "physics envy". This doesn't seem even remotely true. I'm not sure whether "physics envy" means that economists envy physicists, or that economists want to make physics-style theories, or that economists wish their theories worked as well as those of physicists. But none of these are true.
Reasons why economists don't have physics envy include:
1. Economists make a lot more money than physicists.
2. Economists are treated as experts on practically anything. An economist can talk about why hipsters have moustaches, and get taken seriously. An economist can talk about which restaurants are the best, and get taken seriously (Update: NO, I'm not saying Tyler's book is bad, I haven't even read it, so HUSH). An economist can talk about politics, marriage, popular music, sex, race, or sports and get taken as seriously as any expert in those fields. An economist can talk about how much progress physicists are likely to make, and get taken seriously. Physicists get taken seriously when they invent quantitative rules for things, but otherwise are treated as just one more tribe of crazy nerds with their heads in the aether....
So there you go.
