This paper is getting a lot of downloads at the Econophysics Forum. Econophyicists are mostly people who received a PhD in theoretical physics (e.g. cosmology) and found that there were no jobs available in such an abstract field, and so found work in finance.
There is nothing wrong with that – I appreciate their support – but I would still like to see a practicing meteorologist comment on my paper.
An axiom is defined as "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." One's axioms are introduced at the beginning of one's book and then all of the subsequent theorems are derived from the axioms. For example, Euclid claimed that, given a line and a point not on the line, there exists a unique line that passes through the point and is parallel to the given line. Lobachevski asserted that there is more than one parallel and Reimann that there are none.
Basically, I need a meteorologist to verify that this was also the procedure of Lewis Fry Richardson. There are many economists today who would ban the axiomatic method and attempt to take economics back to a proverb-based “science,” similar to pre-Richardson meteorology, where every argument has the form, “five of the last nine recessions had such-and-such characteristic, therefore the current recession will too.”
I feel that it is shameful that Buchanan and others are using Richardson’s good name to promote a methodology diametrically opposed to the approach that Richardson actually took.