pull down to refresh

Everyone knows there are more than two types. The point of using simplifications, which Austrians do too, is to parse out where certain results come from: i.e. there only need to be two types of worker for some observed phenomenon to occur.
Could it be oversimplification due to the constraints of mathematical modeling? Because everybody does know that there are more than two types of workers, soon to be supplemented by non-carbon based workers.
reply
Yes, it could be an oversimplification. The way to assess that is to see if the result still holds with an arbitrary number of worker types. That takes more work and different sets of assumptions. Again, these results are hints at what might be going on.
When Austrians say "ceteris paribus" it's not because they think other things really do stay fixed. It's to simplify the analysis and focus on a particular aspect.
reply
When Austrians say "ceteris paribus" it's not because they think other things really do stay fixed. It's to simplify the analysis and focus on a particular aspect.
Yes, that certainly does simplify the situation completely! Perhaps they have been burned enough by that single simplification to not use it at every turn in their reasoning. The whole idea behind the human action idea is that everything changes at almost every change in situations. Never are two situations the same.
reply
That's true, but also completely intractable for analysis purposes.
reply
Perhaps logical, verbal reasoning can handle this sort of analysis. Situations just don’t remain the same over multiple trials even with simplifications, do they?
reply
You can't possibly formulate a sentence, much less an argument, that describes everything that's changing and accounts for every possibility.
Mathematical notation is generally more parsimonious, not less. That's basically why it exists.