I think I’ve misled you and a few others with my way of expressing myself here. When I say I “like” micro, I mean I like working through the puzzles and they make logical/mathematical sense *within their own restrictions* (i.e. they’re internally consistent by and large). I didn’t mean I think that anything micro textbooks say is *true* or empirically robust.

With macro, by contrast, I don’t even know what it would be to assess its truth, since I can’t even make logical sense of the models.

I agree that micro fails as an empirical theory of actual human choice. But by the same token logic fails as an empirical theory of human inference. Logic is of course dealing with idealised ‘optimum’ inference, not the way humans typically infer. And some marginalists (e.g. Jevons) saw micro as doing the same with choice.


Lecturer in Philosophy, University of St. Andrews — personal website: https://axdouglas.com/

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store