The Cato Institute

KyussBishop

This might not fit in 'Political Theory' so well as it might 'Politics' or 'US Politics', but since Cato seems to be one of the primary lobby groups for Libertarian political theory, I feel this is a good place for it

I happened upon this following article on the Cato institute in one of my RSS feeds, which details quite a lot of controversy surrounding this institute:
www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

This has me wondering how significant a role Cato has in shaping Libertarian views, and Libertarian political lobbying in general, and leads to some questions:
What are peoples opinions of Cato?
How much have people been influenced by Cato?
What do people think about the controversies in the article above? (and below)


The Koch brothers are a rather interesting bunch, and particularly, I find it very interesting to see some of their efforts to influence economic teaching:

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."
...
Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations.
...
Now, rather than taking over entire academic departments, Koch is funding faculty who promote his agenda at universities where there are a variety of economic views. In addition to FSU, Koch has made similar arrangements at two other state schools, Clemson University in South Carolina and West Virginia University

In the context of my skepticism towards US-centric Libertarian economics, this is particularly interesting to me.

I'm still researching a lot of economics (but it's slow as it's a broad topic, and I regularly read a ton of other stuff which is distracting me from it), but I gather that much of US-centered Libertarianism supports Austrian based economics, which is relatively marginalized.
In light of that, it is quite interesting to see this kind of lobbying taking place, and I wonder how prevalent it is.

It's also spurred me to research Austrian economics in more detail, and it's very notable to me how some of if is analogous to neoclassical economics (i.e. much of mainstream economics of the last 30 years), and particularly how Austrian economics looks like it may reject the scientific method and the use of empirical data and falsifiability in its theory.


Anyway, what else can people tell me about Cato and its controversies (and the US Libertarian think-tank landscape in general), and what are peoples opinions on it all?

What, also, are peoples opinions on Austrian economics?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's also spurred me to research Austrian economics in more detail, and it's very notable to me how some of if is analogous to neoclassical economics (i.e. much of mainstream economics of the last 30 years), and particularly how Austrian economics looks like it may reject the scientific method and the use of empirical data and falsifiability in its theory.


Anyway, what else can people tell me about Cato and its controversies (and the US Libertarian think-tank landscape in general), and what are peoples opinions on it all?

What, also, are peoples opinions on Austrian economics?

I don't really have an opinion on the Cato Institute.

There are numerous key differences between the Austrian School and neoclassical or mainstream economics. An Austrian economist does not reject the scientific method in general, but reject its application(in varying degrees) to something as complex as a modern industrial economy, primarily because you cannot treat a complex economy like a test tube where you can control and limit variables.

Robert Murphy covers some of the key differences(note: the technical terminology used may make it unsuitable for someone not familiar with economics).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qArpSSmmFJw

The Austrian School tries to deduce theory around undeniable facts that cannot be falsified by data. How the hell can you deduce a body of economic thought around the fact that humans act? I really think the best way to get a clear understanding of the deductive method used by Austrians is to read the first chapter(about 70 pages) of Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State.
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

It's a republican party propaganda mill. It amazes me that they try to say they are principled libertarians when clearly they are far from it. Would principled libertarians defend Bush's attacks on civil liberties? Write papers suggesting bombing in Pakistan? call dissenters from Bush's Policies “Terrorism’s Fellow Travellers“?

A lot of these non Koch aligned board members are the very people who write these kinds of papers.

I have to say, though, absolute disaster for this to happen while the opposition is in the white house.

Valmont

RichieC wrote: »

It's a republican party propaganda mill. It amazes me that they try to say they are principled libertarians when clearly they are far from it. Would principled libertarians defend Bush's attacks on civil liberties? Write papers suggesting bombing in Pakistan? call dissenters from bushes Policies “Terrorism’s Fellow Travellers“?

I've been following this in-fighting for a while now and I get the impression that many libertarians (especially the Mises institute libertarians) are really enjoying the fireworks at Cato -- especially considering the manner in which Cato did away with Murray Rothbard back in the day.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Interesting views/links on the Cato controversies, thanks. There seem to be a bunch of Libertarian think tanks and lobby groups around; what are others which would be more representative of current libertarian principals and peoples views?

SupaNova wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting; the 'action axiom' at the core of praxeology (and apparently Austrian economics, of the Misean variety anyway) seems to be fundamentally flawed, in that it assumes people will act in a logical and rational way i.e. a conscious way, when a lot of our actions are subconscious and a lot less thought-out/rational than we think; you also have stuff like severe mental illness, so basically you can never depend on actions being logical.

So basically, it seems to use logic based upon these premises, to build up an overall theory, but it makes too many (often unstated) assumptions of disputed validity.
It also seems to reject the use of scientific method and empirical study to determine whether or not the theory holds up, but even if you take the action axiom at face value, everything else you infer from it isn't true 'a priori', but would have to be verified by empirical means.

So, I don't understand it's rejection of empirical/scientific methods in determining whether or not aspects of the theory are valid (it seems logically false to rule them out).
Rothbard and Mises (from what I can tell) seem to explicitly reject the idea of empirical evidence being able to say anything about Austrian economics, which is quite bizzare. The logical conclusion of this, is that you can't even provide evidence as proof of the effectiveness of components of Austrian economics, nevermind disproof (in fact it is supposed to be unfalsifiable).

Also, the apparent insistence on describing the whole theory verbally (rather than laying the theory and, most importantly, the assumptions out point-by-point in a logical way), has been kind of taken to an extreme of verbal verbosity; this is kind of obfuscatory and seems like it tries to hide that the theory is based on a huge amount of assumptions, not stuff solely derived from the core axiom.
So yes, those other assumptions can't be inherently true but need to be tested empirically to determine their validity.

Permabear wrote: »

If you've read much economic history, you'll know that after World War II mainstream economics became highly formalistic and mathematical. This created a decisive break with the the literary economics (i.e., economics described in prose, as opposed to mathematics or models) that had predominated up to that point.

Debate about the usefulness of mathematical economic modeling, which involve the Austrian school, but also go far beyond it, continue to prevail among economists. Although Keynes contributed important early work on probability and uncertainty in economic systems, he was highly skeptical about the value of econometrics (calling it "black magic" and "statistical alchemy") as was Nobel laureate John Hicks. Although these two economists largely reshaped the post-WWII economics curriculum around formalist lines (consumer demand theory, the IS/LM model, aggregate demand analysis, indifference curves, and so on), neither believed that models should actually be used in designing or planning policy. They also believed that economists should continue presenting their theories by way of prose argument, so as not to "bamboozle" the public with complex maths and models.

This longstanding gulf between modeling and reality rose to the fore again in 2009, when Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" According to Krugman, "the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth." He went on to state:



The Austrian School predates the post-WWII formalist revolution, and Austrian economists continue in the tradition of literary economics — although it's a mistake to assume that this is because they "can't do maths," because many have been highly mathematically trained. Rather they believe that the central processes of the market (heterogenous human actors' constantly shifting knowledge of constantly changing pricing structures, embedded within fluid and mobile systems of social relations) cannot be captured mathematically. They are equally skeptical about the use of aggregate data, which can conceal as much as it reveals.

An Austrian would have no quarrel with Krugman's caution that "economists will have to learn to live with messiness." In an economic real world that stubbornly refuses to make itself amenable to mathematical modeling, they see their position as the more tenable one.

Indeed a lot of neoclassical economics seem to be stuck in their mathematical models, though (as I described above) a lot of Austrian economics seem to go right the other way and reject scientific method and empiricism altogether.

I'm (at the early stages of) reading Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics" at the moment, which does quite a good job of laying out the neoclassical issues you describe; it's worrying how much of a hold it all still has.

What seems to have happened with a lot of the verbal prose arguments behind Austrian economics though, is they seem highly subject to slight-of-verbal-hand, and Mises writing in particular seems to have a huge array of unstated assumptions which undermine the supposed 'a priori' nature of the theory he developed (meaning just about all of it is indeed subject to empirical testing and falsifiability).

So rather than obfuscating things mathematically, he has obfuscated things verbally, rejecting even laying out his model in a point-by-point logically denoted list of principals and assumptions etc.; makes it incredibly hard to read.



There appear to be competing varieties of Austrian economics, not all based on Mises foundation; are Mises's axiom-based theories the foundation of the US-centric Libertarian economics (including the rejection of empricism/scientific method), or are some of the more empirically-friendly varieties dominant?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

Interesting; the 'action axiom' at the core of praxeology (and apparently Austrian economics, of the Misean variety anyway) seems to be fundamentally flawed, in that it assumes people will act in a logical and rational way i.e. a conscious way, when a lot of our actions are subconscious and a lot less thought-out/rational than we think; you also have stuff like severe mental illness, so basically you can never depend on actions being logical.

No it does not assume rationality, and from memory this is covered in the specific chapter I recommended as well as the video from Robert P Murphy.

EDIT: Lol this is covered in the very first few sentences of Man, Economy and State. Be careful not to rely solely on 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of whatever your researching. If the first thing you look for when researching something is criticism be aware that such criticism may be based on a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the subject, accidental or deliberate. With the conflating of neoclassical and Austrian economics, the use of the term 'Libertarian economics', and the criticism of the 'action axiom' that was based on a misunderstanding of it, I think you are probably better served reading the source material directly yourself, that's if you're actually interested in researching it.

So basically, it seems to use logic based upon these premises, to build up an overall theory, but it makes too many (often unstated) assumptions of disputed validity.

Can you give examples?

Also, the apparent insistence on describing the whole theory verbally (rather than laying the theory and, most importantly, the assumptions out point-by-point in a logical way), has been kind of taken to an extreme of verbal verbosity; this is kind of obfuscatory and seems like it tries to hide that the theory is based on a huge amount of assumptions, not stuff solely derived from the core axiom.

I don't know how you could get to the bolded part if you read some of Rothbard's first chapter of Man, Economy and State which I'm not sure can be any more clear and point by point.

What seems to have happened with a lot of the verbal prose arguments behind Austrian economics though, is they seem highly subject to slight-of-verbal-hand, and Mises writing in particular seems to have a huge array of unstated assumptions which undermine the supposed 'a priori' nature of the theory he developed (meaning just about all of it is indeed subject to empirical testing and falsifiability).

So rather than obfuscating things mathematically, he has obfuscated things verbally, rejecting even laying out his model in a point-by-point logically denoted list of principals and assumptions etc.; makes it incredibly hard to read.

Can you give some examples?

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote:

No it does not assume rationality, and from memory this is covered in the specific chapter I recommended as well as the video from Robert P Murphy.

I've no audio to watch the video at the moment, but the book didn't satisfactorily cover this; it presumes a purpose in peoples actions, and it has that as the basis of its rationality, but this isn't always true, peoples actions don't always have a purpose.

If you disagree, please explain the axiom yourself (and how what I say does not apply) rather than referring me to a book; I've spent a good bit of time going through that and other ones today.

SupaNova wrote:

EDIT: Lol this is covered in the very first few sentences of Man, Economy and State. Be careful not to rely solely on 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of whatever your researching. If the first thing you look for when researching something is criticism be aware that such criticism may be based on a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the subject, accidental or deliberate. With the conflating of neoclassical and Austrian economics, the use of the term 'Libertarian economics', and the criticism of the 'action axiom' that was based on a misunderstanding of it, I think you are probably better served reading the source material directly yourself.

No I've done my research, and have not relied on second hand sources (even though I've used many to develop a better understanding)
You haven't contested my argument either, you've dismissed it; I've read through that section of the book, so please quote the relevant parts if you disagree with my criticism.

Also, there are numerous similarities between Austrian and neoclassical economics, even though as a whole they are very different; it's very analogous in its support of free markets, and it's theory of production in particular, opens it up to some of the same criticisms of neoclassical economics (which I'm still researching).

SupaNova wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

So basically, it seems to use logic based upon these premises, to build up an overall theory, but it makes too many (often unstated) assumptions of disputed validity.

Can you give an examples?

Well the first and most fundamental one is the axiom itself, another one is the 'disutility of labour', which is not of disputed validity but it is an assumption which does not build upon his core axiom.

From Mises himself:

Experience teaches that there is disutility of labor. But it does not teach it directly. There is no phenomenon that introduces itself as disutility of labor. There are only data of experience which are interpreted, on the ground of aprioristic knowledge, to mean that men consider leisure—i.e., the absence of labor—other things being equal, as a more desirable condition than the expenditure of labor.

Since this is not true 'a priori' it must be verified empirically instead, and is open to falsification.

Another area of contention seems to lie around the idea of comparative advantage, and Mises/Rothbards theory of that; it is complicated to read up on, but there appear to have been underlying hidden assumptions here which have since been invalidated, but I need to research it more.

SupaNova wrote:

I don't know how you could get to the bolded part if you read some of the Rothbard's first chapter of Man, Economy and State which I'm not sure can be any more clear and point by point.

It's 70 odd pages exhaustively detailing the minutiae of the theory verbally; I'm not going to contest the wider point at the moment, but it was far from clear and point by point.

SupaNova wrote:

There is no such thing as Libertarian economics. I'm guessing a lot or maybe a majority of US Libertarians would follow Friedman who took an empirical approach.

Well, 'Libertarian economics' is a general statement referring to whatever economic theories are dominant for US-centric Libertarians. I thought Freidman was predominantly neoclassical/monetarist? (these, especially the latter, don't seem entirely compatible with Libertarian views)


What do you personally think of the core Austrian economic principals? Do you agree with the idea that they are not challengeable empirically/scientifically, and are all 'a priori' based on the core axiom, or do you have a different view?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've no audio to watch the video at the moment, but the book didn't satisfactorily cover this; it presumes a purpose in peoples actions, and it has that as the basis of its rationality, but this isn't always true, peoples actions don't always have a purpose.

You previously said their theory assumes rational actors which you say is flawed. It does not assume rational actors. There is a difference between rational and purposeful action. Humans choose means with the purpose of attaining ends. Neither the means nor the ends have to be rational.

I can't believe you have made any decent attempt to read Human Action or Man, Economy, and State to be honest, and I'm not prepared to play questions and answers all day, when you could easily answer those questions with some careful reading of the source material, rather than some combination of skimming and 2nd hand accounts.

KyussBishop

You're making a lot of disingenuous assumptions there; I've read through the first chapter of the book, and my only flawed argument is the validity of the axiom (which is not based on second hand sources).
I'll concede that I was misreading the action axiom, as after reexamining it I see the fault I was making with it; its applications are somewhat restrictive though.

While parts of the theory are deduced from it logically, much of the theory still makes added assumptions and thus is still empirically challengeable, and subject to requiring empirical validation.

So, the rest of the arguments/questions in my post (not specifically on the axiom), are still valid.

KyussBishop

Have been reading up on and thinking on this more through the night: The principals of Austrian economics, of building up the theory based on praxeology, are useful to all economics, but only up to a limited extent.
It seems like there must be a divergence (perhaps even very early on) in the chain of logic from the base 'a priori' inherently true statements, where the further deduced chain of logic relies on increasing assumptions and potentially unforeseen consequences may creep in, particularly as the complexity of the theory increases.

So, while I'm only starting out in my examination of Austrian economics, I'm interested in focusing on the points where these separations exist; the very kernel of Austrian economics (unfortunately maybe only very close to the core axiom) may contain immutable statements true for all economic theories, but there must be a point of divergence where greater numbers of assumptions are made which put the larger theory in the same realm as other economic theories, and thus make it equally falsifiable and requiring empirical evidence to back parts of it up.

It seems though, that finding where this divergence starts to occur may be very difficult due to the literature; the literature is perfectly good for determining the presented chain of logic for the theory, but not where the divergence starts with hidden assumptions and other uncertain variables (basically, it's not so good at seeking out the problem cases, which is the first and most informative thing I do whenever I look at a theory, i.e. try find ways to break it and set limits/bounds on it).


Is anyone able to point out a good source for looking at Austrian economics and praxeology in this kind of an analytical way? (specifically, trying to find problems with it and put bounds on where it diverges from 'a priori' true statements into predictions)

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

It seems like there must be a divergence (perhaps even very early on) in the chain of logic from the base 'a priori' inherently true statements, where the further deduced chain of logic relies on increasing assumptions and potentially unforeseen consequences may creep in, particularly as the complexity of the theory increases.

There is no reason that will necessarily happen. Much of modern mathematics is built on a relatively small number of axioms, despite the enormous amount of output. While one could perhaps intuitively feel that a book on the scale of Human Action would contain "axiom creep", suggesting that this will happen before reading the text is really to give it an unfair reading.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

Have been reading up on and thinking on this more through the night: The principals of Austrian economics, of building up the theory based on praxeology, are useful to all economics, but only up to a limited extent.
It seems like there must be a divergence (perhaps even very early on) in the chain of logic from the base 'a priori' inherently true statements, where the further deduced chain of logic relies on increasing assumptions and potentially unforeseen consequences may creep in, particularly as the complexity of the theory increases.

This is a legitimate point but not something anyone is unaware of. Austrian economics hasn't finished with either Hayek, Mises or Rothbard being taken as gospel, and mistakes of varying degree are recognised.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An essential thing to note though, is that mathematics is built on and expressed in formal logic, i.e. mathematical statements, not verbally; this makes them far easier to spot mistakes in and falsify.
Even then, consider how some of the most complicated mathematical formulations and theories are shown to have fault on a regular basis, and then imagine how even easier it would be to make such mistakes in expressing an entire theory verbally.

With the whole of Mises framework expressed verbally, that allows any faults to stay hidden, because not all of the variables, assumptions, and dependent axioms are explicitly stated.
It also paradoxically raises the barrier to analyzing the theory, and quite massively; it is easy to get a solid grounding in it by reading verbally, but incredibly difficult to then seek out the faults in it without mathematical analysis.

So ya, this is why I'm interested in seeing if anyone can point me to that kind of a more formal analysis, which also shows the divergence from 'a priori' to empirically testable statements.

SupaNova wrote: »

This is a legitimate point but not something anyone is unaware of. Austrian economics hasn't finished with either Hayek, Mises or Rothbard being taken as gospel, and mistakes of varying degree are recognised.

Is there a place I can read up on those mistakes?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah I had a mistaken understanding of the axiom, which I figured out since; the problems I saw in it weren't valid.


Actually, one thing I'm curious of in my reading of the axiom, it seems focused on humans (which makes sense for the purposes of the axiom), but it would be applicable to all other animals too, yes?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

With the whole of Mises framework expressed verbally, that allows any faults to stay hidden, because not all of the variables, assumptions, and dependent axioms are explicitly stated.
It also paradoxically raises the barrier to analyzing the theory, and quite massively; it is easy to get a solid grounding in it by reading verbally, but incredibly difficult to then seek out the faults in it without mathematical analysis.

It is not a given that mathematics will be an improvement over what is described in words.


Political scientest Bruno Leoni and mathematician Eugenio Frola point out:

"It is often claimed that translation of such a concept as the maximum from ordinary into mathematical language, involves an improvement in the logical accuracy of the concept, as well as wider opportunities for its use. But the lack of mathematical precision in ordinary language reflects precisely the behavior of individual human beings in the real world…. We might suspect that translation into mathematical language by itself implies a suggested transformation of human economic operators into virtual robots."


And from the son of Carl Menger, who was himself a mathematical economist:

"Consider, for example, the statements:

(2)To a higher price of a good, there corresponds a lower (or at any rate not a higher) demand.

(2')If p denotes the price of, and q the demand for, a good, then
q = f(p) and dq/dp = f' (p ) <= 0

Those who regard the formula (2') as more precise or "more mathematical' than the sentence (2) are under a complete misapprehension… the only difference between (2) and (2') is this: since (2') is limited to functions which are differentiable and whose graphs, therefore, have tangents (which from an economic point of view are not more plausible than curvature), the sentence (2) is more general, but it is by no means less precise: it is of the same mathematical precision as (2')."


I don't know if you read Leonard Read's I, Pencil that Permabear recommended in the other thread. But here is a follow up by Sheldon Richman that illustrates the points made above where the complexity of a wide array of interlocking capital goods of varying convertibility is reduced to a single aggregate statistic 'K' in macroeconomic models.

Is there a place I can read up on those mistakes?

On the Mises.org website there is plenty of self-criticism to be found, criticism of Hayekian triangles comes to mind because it was criticised for its aggregations and simplifications, which Austrians criticize other schools strongly for. Also search for papers defending certain aspects of Austrian Economics, you will see who they were in response to, and can go and find both sides of debates from there, you might find some mistakes that way.

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

It is not a given that mathematics will be an improvement over what is described in words.

There's no good reason not to describe it in both though; you can examine, analyze, test or disprove things far more definitively with mathematics than you can with words.

With mathematics you have to state everything definitively, it lays out all of the hidden assumptions and variables, and it lays out exactly where a theory digresses from inherently true statements to those of a less-solid grounding, and where empiricism steps in.

Words are more prone to obfuscation, misinterpretation, hidden assumptions/variables etc. which make the underlying faults/limitations/boundaries of the logic much less clear.

So, why only one or the other, why not both?

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no good reason not to describe it in both though; you can examine, analyze, test or disprove things far more definitively with mathematics than you can with words.

So, why only one or the other, why not both?

Take inflation(increasing the money supply) which causes prices to rise in succession rather than evenly, and different prices to rise at different rates depending on the source and volume of monetary inflation, and every time this process happens, it will effect prices differently because the human actors involved change and so do the physical conditions of the real world surrounding those actors.

Can you represent the process with an equation?

KyussBishop

This has led me to an interesting diversion for the last while: How do you express informal (non-mathematical) logic in a rigorous way, which does not leave out any hidden assumptions etc?

While there are a lot of aspects of the theory which can be modeled mathematically (including inflation, not necessarily accurately mind), there is no formal (only informal) way to build it that way from the ground up, and (apparently) no alternative method (beyond verbal) for rigorously structuring informal logic here.

So, that leaves the problem of how to identify the underlying hidden assumptions etc. with the theory and where it diverges from 'a priori' truths to things needed empirical testing.

It would be interesting to see an argument map (or something like it) outlining the Austrian economic theory (I can't tell if there's a more rigorous way to represent it), including any hidden assumptions and objections to it; would be quite informative.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no good reason not to describe it in both though; you can examine, analyze, test or disprove things far more definitively with mathematics than you can with words.

That's really not true. While from the layman's perspective mathematics might seem like some kind of holy grail able to answer any question definitively, the actual practice of it is much less inspiring. The typical mathematical model uses many simplifications and assumptions in order to give equations that have a chance of actually being understood. Putting every factor into a model is simply not possible.

These elementary issues become more problematic the more complex the system you are attempting to model becomes.

I'm currently studying for a fluid dynamics exam; as a subject, it's instructive. Fluid particles, unlike humans, are deterministic, and yet the notion that one could devise exact mathematical solutions of even small fluid simulations is basically fantastical. The flagship equations in the field, the Navier Stokes equations, are the subject of a $1 million Clay Institute prize because full understanding them is so elusive. And the NS equations are still only approximations of the behavior of deterministic particles.

KyussBishop

Even though I've negated part of my view regarding application of mathematics, still a few relevant points:

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's really not true. While from the layman's perspective mathematics might seem like some kind of holy grail able to answer any question definitively, the actual practice of it is much less inspiring. The typical mathematical model uses many simplifications and assumptions in order to give equations that have a chance of actually being understood. Putting every factor into a model is simply not possible.

Here I would say the value of mathematics is in having to explicitly state these assumptions, thus everything you need to know is there in the model, but with expressing things verbally there can be any number of hidden assumptions, and any other number of compromising aspects of the theory, which would become more evidence if it could be expressed mathematically.

Again though, I've noted how it's not possible to deduce a whole mathematical formula for the theory from the ground up (so am agreeing with you for most part ); I have been searching, but haven't found another means with which the logic of the theory could be expressed in a more rigorous way.

It would be useful though, to see an argument map or something like it (it's not as rigorous as math, but it's an interesting way of constructing the logical chain), outlaying the current theory, its assumptions and pitfalls, and where it diverges into arguments that need empirical backing.

Dr Galen

People can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this thread has gone way OT

I am going to close this thread temporarily to allow the following

a) Me some time to read through it properly ( I can't right now, I have pizza on the way)

b) to give posters an opportunity to drop me a PM with some suggestions as to how we could spilt the thread up a bit, into separate threads discussion other interesting points.

Cheers

DrG