Teaching Economics Without Calculus

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility and implications of teaching economics without the use of calculus. Participants explore various perspectives on whether calculus is essential for understanding economics, particularly at introductory levels, and the potential benefits and limitations of mathematical approaches in the field.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while calculus is beneficial for advanced economics, it is possible to learn basic economics without it, especially in introductory courses.
  • Others suggest that numerical methods or alternative approaches, such as genetic algorithms, could be used to solve economic problems without calculus.
  • A participant mentions the importance of thinking marginally, considering the effects of small changes in production.
  • Some express skepticism about the necessity of calculus in economics, questioning whether it truly enhances understanding or merely complicates the subject.
  • There are claims that advanced economics courses typically require calculus, and that a strong mathematical foundation is beneficial for graduate studies.
  • One participant reflects on their experience with analysis as a rigorous extension of calculus, indicating that some economics students engage with higher-level mathematics.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential misuse of mathematics in economics, suggesting that excessive reliance on calculus may lead to misleading models.
  • Some participants share personal experiences and anecdotes regarding the role of calculus in their own education and its perceived value in the field of economics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of calculus in economics education. While some believe it is essential for deeper understanding, others maintain that basic economics can be effectively taught without it.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of familiarity with calculus and its applications in economics, indicating a range of educational backgrounds and experiences. Some mention the potential for alternative methods to address economic problems, highlighting the diversity of approaches within the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students considering economics courses, educators exploring curriculum design, and individuals curious about the relationship between mathematics and economics.

  • #61
bhobba said:
Actually math is central to that - as I explained in another post it was caused by too much faith in beautiful mathematics used in securitising low grade investments and greed clouding what should have been done ie carefully checking the math they were using.. High profile experts like Mandelbrot did and warned about it, but with dollar signs clouding their vision he was ignored. He has seen it all before. When he was a junior researcher at IBM someone come up with a surefire way to make money on the stock market. They ran simulation after simulation and it never failed. But as a final check they gave it to him and he spotted the issue immediately - they did not take into account transaction costs. When that was done it failed. That is not to say math can't be used for such things - look into a mathematician called Jim Simons - you will find it interesting.

Thanks
Bill

Yes, that was my point, just as you cannot reduce an the causes of WW1 to some mathematical analysis, there was no math used in your explanation of what caused the financial crisis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Science news on Phys.org
  • #62
BWV said:
Yes, that was my point, just as you cannot reduce an analysis of the causes of WW1 to some mathematical analysis, there was no math used in your explanation of what caused the financial crisis.

I gave it my like - but IMHO its cause was too much FAITH in flawed math. Math doesn't explain why you would do that - but it was indeed caused by faith in flawed math. So in one sense you are correct - in another not.

Economics can use math to explain what a rational person should do but not why they can be, and often are, irrational. I was speaking to my doctor yesterday and he mentioned Freudian Analysis has been totally discredited yet especially in the US tons of Psychiatrists use it. Board Certified Psychiatrists must pass exactly the same exam as Neurologists in the US - they are no dummies - yet many use a totally discredited method. What is the modern approach? Well aside from diseases caused by a brain chemical issues eg bipolar disorder, it's to find something that simply is not logical. The tension and worry because they really know its illogical, is what needs to change to fix it. I have a number of those but that is getting way off topic. When you realize that you see math can never explain human behavior, just help in finding the best behavior if you are rational. Many are not.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Yes, but I would argue that every actor in the mortgage supply chain, from the borrower to the mid-level bankers to the corporate execs to the institutional investors who bought the paper acted rationally under the incentives they had at the time

Not arguing that the economic models of rational behavior (which employ calculus) are not useful, but they are not the analogs of physical theories

in physics, the usefulness of your model is not impacted by other physicists trying to game it
 
  • #64
The last post was on Tuesday, its now Sunday so I think it can now be closed. Its been milked pretty dry IMHO. But of course if anyone wants to add something drop me a line.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
19K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
9K