If you ask physicist how long it would take for a marble to
fall from the top of a ten-story building, she will answer the question by
assuming that the marble falls in a vacuum. Of course, this assumption is
false. In fact, the building is surrounded by air, which exerts friction on the
falling marble and slows it down. Yet the physicist will correctly point out
that friction on the marble is so small that its effect is negligible. Assuming
the marble falls in a vacuum greatly simplifies the problem without
substantially affecting the answer.
Economists make assumption for the same reason: Assumptions can simplify the complex world
and make it easier to understand. To study the effects of international trade,
for example, we may assume that the world consists of only two countries and
that each country produces only two
goods. Of course the real world consists of dozens of countries, each of which
produces thousands of different types of goods. But by assuming two countries
and two goods, we can focus our thinking on the essence of the problem. Once we
understand international trade in an imaginary world with two countries and two
goods, we are in a better position to understand international trade in the
more complex world in which we live.
The art in scientific thinking whether in physics, biology
or economics is deciding which assumptions to make. Suppose, for instance, that
we were dropping a beach ball rather than a marble from the top of the building.
Our physicist would realize that the assumption of no friction is far less
accurate in this case: Friction exerts a greater force on beach-ball than on a
marble because a beach ball is much larger. The assumption that gravity works in
a vacuum is reasonable for studying a falling marble but not for studying a
falling beach ball.
Comments
Post a Comment