journal of physics economics

8/10/2019 Journal of Physics Economics

1/6

More Heat T h a n Light: Economics a s SocPhysics, Physics as Nature s Economics. BP h i l i p M irowsk i. Cam br idge : C am br idgeU n i v e r s it y P r e s s 1989.

ew books on the history of economics begin with a discussionof physics, bu t Mirowski's brill iant work is no ordinary book.He contends that economics, culminating in the currently

dominan t neoclassical school, ha s throughout it s history been con-trolled by a metaphor. Most economists regard th ei r discipline a s a

science; since, in the common understanding, physics is the bestdeveloped of the sciences economics ought to be modeled on physics


2/6

24 The Review of Austrian Economics V

energy conservation since i t requires new energy to be generated outof nothing.

Mirowski once more wri tes not a s a mere observer of th e scene.He thinks that physics has placed undue reliance on conservationlaws. They cannot be exactly s tat ed; and the proofs of the laws, e.g.,the impossibility of perpetual motion, rest more on assertion thanargument. Even more importantly, a look a t th e history of physicsshows tha t conservation principles have died the death of a thousandqualifications. 2

The sad ta le begins with Descartes, who according to Mirowskimade the conservation of ma ss basic to hi s program of reducing th e

physical world to matter in motion. I am inclined to thinkMirowski overemphasizes Descartes' philosophical adherence to con-


3/6

ook R e v i e w s

th e mathematical methods cited above be used. As th e rea der will bynow expect, the rise of special and general relativity and quantummechanics in the present century has fur the r complicated th e storyand altered th e meaning of conservation laws. Mirowski goes so fa ra s to suggest th a t physicists have really abandoned conservation butcling to an outworn metaphor.

All very interesting, no doubt; but what has this to do witheconomics? Mirowski's answer is practically everything. Economistshave directly translated the models of physics in use in their timeinto economic categories. (Incidentally, this does not exclude theinfluence of economic concepts in physics.) Why, e.g., did Adam Smi th

define wealth as stock (p. 166)? Not because t hi s definition wasdictated to him by his observation of th e economy. Quite the contrary,


4/6

26 The eview of Au strian Economics V

LBon Walras and William Stan ley Jevons, both of whom had scientificbackgrounds, directly intended to use the physics of their day totransform economics into a n exact science. Even more clearly, IrvingFisher, whose 1892 doctoral disser tation a t Yale remains, if threader will forgive me, a classic of neoclassicism, made crystal clearhis goal. Fisher himself dre w detailed para llels between mechanicsand economics. His thesi s was written , not under the supervision ofan economist, but with J Willard Gibbs, one of the greatest of aAmerican physicists, a s its director.

In t he neoclassical view, util ity is a vector-field corresponding toenergy. Mirowski ably shows how th e en ti re neoclassical edifice falls

into place once one grasps th is basic idea. Bu t this does not vindicateneoclassicism: far from it. Utility h as to be regarded a s an entity


5/6

ook Reviews

can retort to Mirowski tha t his vague references to s trategic consid-erations and game theory p. 236) are no substitute for a rigororefutation of the law.

Of course, common-sense arguments have no place in a systemth at purports to be completely mathematical, and to th e extent th atneoclassicism has t hi s goal, Mirowski's challenge to th e law of singleprice is perfectly justified. Bu t does contemporary economics alto-gether eschew argument s not based on physics? I t will hardly do todismiss the use of such arguments just because they do not conformto Mirowski's own picture of neoclassicism.

Regardless of th i s and o ther deta ils , Mirowski's case is formi-

dable. How can economics escape it s longs tand ing bewitchment byphysics? Readers familiar with A ust ria n economics cannot fail to


6/6

28 The Review of Au strian Economics V

Mirowski s continual claim th a t precisely th e same conservation lawsare present in both physics and economics itself a n instance of justth e sor t of domination by t he metaphor of conservation he complainsof in others? For Mirowski, it i s apparen tly t he conservation lawstha t mus t be conserved.

The book is immensely stimulating and suggestive. It is mustreading for all economists and intellectual historians.

David ordonhe Ludwig von Mises

journal of physics economics

Documents