Marshall was wrong-- math is a good vehicle of inquiry too. What typically happens is this:
1. I have an intuitive idea in economics, e.g., tariffs would increase efficiency as a way to counteract an income tax.
2. I write it up. Most of the time I discover in writing it that hte idea is wrong, and it dies immediately.
3. I do a numerical example. This might well kill it too.
4. I do a formal model. By this point, ordinarily the idea will survive, but in crippled, restrained form. I discover what hidden assumptions were in my mind. These assumptions are often so strong that I kill the idea as being too limited in scope.
5. If the idea survives, though, I translate it back into words in the Intro to the article. People read that part, and skip the proofs. But without the math, I would (a) make overstrong claims, and (b) make false claims. Every good idea can be presented intuitively, in words. But so can lots of bad ideas.
Marshall was wrong-- math is a good vehicle of inquiry too. What typically happens is this:
1. I have an intuitive idea in economics, e.g., tariffs would increase efficiency as a way to counteract an income tax.
2. I write it up. Most of the time I discover in writing it that hte idea is wrong, and it dies immediately.
3. I do a numerical example. This might well kill it too.
4. I do a formal model. By this point, ordinarily the idea will survive, but in crippled, restrained form. I discover what hidden assumptions were in my mind. These assumptions are often so strong that I kill the idea as being too limited in scope.
5. If the idea survives, though, I translate it back into words in the Intro to the article. People read that part, and skip the proofs. But without the math, I would (a) make overstrong claims, and (b) make false claims. Every good idea can be presented intuitively, in words. But so can lots of bad ideas.