Probabilistic Theory of Stock Exchanges - страница 6

Problem 2 is the lack of an experimental basis for economic science in the sense understood in natural sciences: data from systematic theoretical calculations should quantitatively coincide with corresponding experimental data with a satisfactory degree of accuracy.

When solving the above problems, we intend to rely on the physical method of economic research, the main feature of which is the aspiration to find and formulate economic laws in the form of equations, to use to the full extend the mathematical body to perform sufficiently accurate quantitative calculations and constantly rely on experiment in verification of hypotheses, theories and concrete numerical results. This method makes it possible to overcome the shortcomings of the simple empirical method, which currently prevails in economic research, based on a logical analysis of experimental data, as, for example, in the Austrian economic school or in econometric analysis of price dynamics, and to achieve the same level of scientific rigor as in natural sciences, above all physics. Without physical methods of research, i.e., without reliance on experiment, the further development of economic theory is impossible; otherwise, it will long remain in its infancy, in other words, it will remain a kind of protoscience in comparison, say, with natural sciences, above all physics.

First, we will very briefly express a subjective opinion about the state of modern economic science, so that the reader could understand the logic of the research undertaken in this work and its main objectives, and, ultimately, the value of the results obtained. We will formulate our opinion in the form of two statements.

Statement one. In our view, all old and new, widely known economic theories, including neoclassical economics, Marxist and Keynesian theories, the Austrian economic school and other currents of economic thought are, in fact, either heuristic or, at best, empirical theories with neither clear unambiguous experimental results, nor rigorous mathematical theories that allow ab initio calculations on the dynamics of specific real market systems whose results coincide with the corresponding experimental results of these markets work with a reliable level of accuracy. Moreover, proponents of even the most logically advanced empirical economic theory, namely the Austrian economic school, argue [Von Mises, 2005; De Soto, 2009] that neither experimentation nor even the use of the mathematical apparatus to describe economic phenomena and market processes is possible in principle. On this basis they categorically denounce all attempts to use the achievements of physics and mathematics for development of the quantitative economic theory. In our opinion, the current situation in economics is not absolute; it only repeats the similar situation that existed in physics 300–600 years ago before the works of Nicholas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei and other physicists and mathematicians of the new era in physics. What is the main reason for economics to lag behind physics for so long in this respect? John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern provide an excellent answer to this question in the quote from their book given in the epigraph. The reason was hidden in an objective factor, namely in the very absence of the possibility to rely on experiment in economics, at least in the form of systematic long-term observations of the cyclic motion of the planets of the solar system, as was done in physics. At present such an opportunity is provided to us by electronic exchanges with their digital platforms and big data that can be used, in general, for the verification and development of economic theories.