The next section is about historical time where already in the first paragraph Joan takes a harsh stand against economic models and says that what economists ought to do is study history. She gives the example of the famous physicist Rutherford, who was said to not care much about any general laws, because he most likely felt that would lead nowhere and he instead opted to try and understand what was happening with those small atoms that were flying about all around him. In a very beautiful passage Joan also explains that humanity seeks knowledge simply because it is there to be sought. Some people can't help themselves. It's not that Tesla was a better man than Edison (well he never hurt anyone so in that respect he was), but he simply didn't care about money. He wanted to know stuff and do stuff. And if we look at both Joan and Keynes they both seem to believe people do things for the »silliest« of reasons. We do not constantly optimise and not everything we do has a clear intent as the Austrians would have us believe; or it at least doesn't have the intent that we had imagined beforehand, else every girl we would ever want to take out would say yes and love would be much more dull. We might be telling ourselves that all our actions are rational, but that's about it. In this case, at least, we can clearly see that both the student and the pupil shared some philosophical views about human existence.
Sadly Joan figures that the standards of physical sciences, at least as far as uncovering new knowledge is concerned, will never be attainable in economics, due to psychological and ideological factors, to name but a few. In my opinion the fact that people think and atoms don't – at least as far as we know anyway – makes a big difference and only adds to the problems concerning the role of logical time in social sciences. In another essay Joan remarks something similar, adding that she, at least, tries to always make it quite clear to the reader, where she stands. There are, of course, strands of economic thought, that claim to be completely objective or if they are not, they believe they one day will be, and that they are asymptotically getting closer to that day with each passing generation; if only we were to let them work in peace and give them some more time, they would eventually reach their goal of pure science. A similar difference can be seen between the american journalist school, that hails objectivity above all else and the likes of the Guardian and the Economist, that both admit their ideological positions and try to be as objective as possible within the given world view.
Finally Joan ends the essay saying that whenever our predictions are off, we should try and look if a relevant change had occurred in the real world or if our theory is indeed faulty. Obviously the opposite is what usually happens and much like the Church Fathers trying to stay relevant in the 21st century, we apply the age old dogma's and clothe them in new theories or look for data that would back them up. As scientists, or at least as thinkers, we should not bow down to public opinion every time a crisis hits, however, this being said, we should at least discard the theorems that make no sense even in a timeless world of logical time. She mentions four of them: the general equilibrium of supply and demand, the long-run production function, the marginal productivity of capital and the equilibrium size of firms. This hardly solves the problems of our discipline, but it would be a start, together with making use of history more often. Sadly curriculum's nowadays are historically starved and we learn nothing about past events and the evolution that got us to where we are. In other words, we are trapped in »today«, thinking that tomorrow will be the same and that is simply because we don't know that yesterday was different. We are like the men of ancient Greece, thinking that women and slaves are the Gods' gift to us, whereas it is in fact far more likely, that any particular historical moment in time had an evolution that led up to it and an evolution which followed immediately after.
 Keynes at one point in his General Theory says that going into business is as rational as going to the South Pole, we rationalize our actions, but that doesn't make them rational. The two are completely different.
 Here there seems to be no discord between our PM and the economics profession.