Meaning what?

Letters– Crazy money From Christopher May, Department of Political Economy, Lancaster University Mark Buchanan is right to question the “rational” account of economics offered by the majority of economists (19 July, p 32). However, like them he describes the market as a natural phenomenon not a social one – he reifies it. He rightly notes that markets are the sum of individuals’ actions, but fails (as do most economists) to acknowledge that markets are manifestations of legal regulation, for instance, laws on contract and property. Hence markets do not “evolve” as he suggests, but are rather facilitated by governments, often prompted by commercial interests seeking new opportunities to make a profit. The current crises may have been caused by individuals and companies, but we should not forget the political choices that facilitated the markets whose crises are now causing us so many problems. A model of economics that ignores such prior political choices about markets will sadly remain unable to fully appreciate the mess we have got ourselves in. Lancaster, UK From Mardi Dungey, Centre for Financial Analysis and Policy, University of Cambridge You interpret the results of the study by Jean-Philippe Bouchaud and colleagues that many large jumps in stock prices are not associated with news releases as evidence of the failure of the equilibrium model of markets. The critical issue is how one defines a jump. My colleagues and I have found that 80 per cent of jumps in US Treasury bond prices are associated with macroeconomic news events. At least some of the 20 per cent which were not can be traced to the release of other information, such as political announcements: see “Empirical Evidence on Jumps in the Term 20 | NewScientist | 9 August 2008

Structure of the US Treasury Market” at www.dungey. bigpondhosting.com. Cambridge, UK From Andrew Slater You observe “it is odd then that most economists seem uninterested, and only a small minority have embraced the new approach” to markets (19 July, p 5). The reason is simple: there is a Nobel prize in economics which promulgates mathematical elegance over realism. Put simply, the orthodox economics and finance taught today in universities and business schools cannot be considered a science in any sense (not even a dismal one); it is no more than a fiction written in equations rather than prose. Moreover, it is not even called a Nobel prize in economics: its proper title is “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, but few realise that and assume the prize is on par with the rest. Removing the prize, or changing its name and criteria for award, would be a first step to achieving a new, and realistic, orthodoxy for economics. Sevenoaks, Kent, UK

cannot touch. It would be a pity, however, if your readers were left with the impression that the lessons to be learned are confined to the need for more intelligent regulation of financial markets. Agent-based modelling is producing a growing body of evidence to suggest that both inequality and general economic instability are inherent properties of uncoordinated exchange economies – a point made by a number of contributions to a July conference on Probabilistic Political Economy at Kingston. Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, UK

Meaning what? From Michael Whalley Stephen Wilson complains that Lawrence Krauss fails to recognise religious believers’ “yearning for meaning” in the face of a universe providing no evidence of a deity (5 July, p 20). True, religious apologists do say that sort of thing, but unfortunately never tell us what they mean by meaning. If they are looking for some way to make our species seem important in the cosmological scheme of things, they are doomed to failure, since all the evidence points rather to our lack of importance. But if it is something else that believers are seeking so eagerly, they should attempt to make it clear what it is. Then perhaps we atheists might be able to help them to find some philosophical consolation. Howick, Quebec, Canada

Advertising ethics From Julian Wells, Kingston University As Mark Buchanan reports, agentbased modelling, and its close relative econophysics – the application of the statistical mechanics paradigm to economic problems – are doing much to illuminate problems which neoclassical economics and its obsession with equilibrium

From John Polkinghorne A. C. Grayling calls academic exploration of the interface between science and religion an attempt to “give religion some of the respectability of science” (12 July, p 48). It is not. Neither is it an endeavour to transcend the limitations inherent in the scientific strategy of bracketing out questions of meaning and

value. To compare religious belief to astrological credulity is an unworthy polemical move, wholly neglecting the serious reasons that religious people (including many scientists) give in support of their belief. Any project in science and religion, whether funded by the Templeton Foundation or not, deserves consideration on its intellectual merits and it is mere atheistic fundamentalism to declare a priori that none exist. Cambridge, UK From Alison Finch I am heartily sick of picking up my New Scientist and being faced with yet another episode in the slanging match between science and religion. Had I wanted to read theological debate, I would have subscribed to a theological magazine, not one supposedly devoted to reporting science. I subscribe to no religion but have no gripe with those who do. All the mud-slinging in the world directed at me because I follow science, by those who subscribe to religious beliefs, would not alter my “faith” in science. Please stop subjecting me to this tripe every week. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, UK

Noise or noisome? From Andrew Craig Laura Spinney considers whether the brain generates noise to heighten perceptual sensitivity (21 June, p 42). The answer appears to be no, unless there is a reason why sensitivity cannot be www.newscientist.com