Prev: An Elementary Proof of Fermat's 'Last Theorem'
Next: JSH: They lie a lot
From: Arindam Banerjee on 16 Jul 2010 00:47
On Jul 16, 1:35 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft
> > > > sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, while
> > > > ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences.
>
> > > > One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous
> > > > scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for
> > > > hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much
> > > > more informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works,
> > > > use it.
>
> > > >http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm
>
> > > > Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production,
> > > > distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
>
> > > > Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon
> > > > such weak research methods comparatively.
>
> > > Actually many economists go to great lengths to dress up economics as
> > > a hard science but it is trivial to prove that that is just a scam:
>
> > >www.bretcahill.com-
>
> > Just that, their models are not good enough.  
>
> Their "models" to perpetrate a fraud certainly aren't good enough.
>
> www.bretcahill.com-

Before the GFC happened. some eminent mathematicians I know were so
much in awe and praise of the mathematical models underlying credit
derivatives. "They are so complex, they surpass even general
relativity. Hardly anyone knows how they work".
Well, I think I know. It works well enough to fool the fools to
paying the ruling fatcats fat commissions for nonexistent assets.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 16 Jul 2010 01:43
On Jul 16, 1:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0500, John Stafford wrote:
> > In article
> > <c535c1d7-c47a-4f44-a4fb-5e85dc7d1...(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
> >> Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon
> >> such weak research methods comparatively.
>
> > Do people really believe economics is a science? I do not. Nor does
> > anyone I know (and I work in academe).
>
> If those in academe think economics is not a science then it is small
> wonder we are producing such poor economists.
>
> > If someone wants a laugh, look to the title Political Science!
>
> Political economy is about rules of order that produce the most
> prosperous middle class.  That is a social science.
>
> --
> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60

Economics is 10% dogma, 10% fraud and 80% politics, all wrapped up in
murky maths geared to provide "scientific" results of the payer's
choosing. Its most reputable relation is astrology, less reputable
ones include voodoo (Bush called Reagonomics voodoo economics, was he
right?).

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
From: Jerry on 16 Jul 2010 02:26
On Jul 14, 5:16 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon
> such weak research methods comparatively.
Is that not similar to the point made by von Mises and others that top
down economic planning is impossible?
From: Giga2 on 16 Jul 2010 03:08
On Jul 16, 5:20 am, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 12:10 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 12:16 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft
> > > sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, while
> > > ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences.
>
> > > One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous
> > > scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for
> > > hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much
> > > more informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works,
> > > use it.
>
> > >http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm
>
> > > Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production,
> > > distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
>
> > > Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon
> > > such weak research methods comparatively.
>
> > What other option is there? Philosophy : )!
>
> The evolution of research methodology which comparatively has come a
> very long way towards making economics and sociology more exact
> sciences. The distinction between soft and hard science is melting
> away as we speak.

Its certainly getting closer to melting perhaps.
From: John Stafford on 16 Jul 2010 07:00
In article <i1ok791s32(a)news2.newsguy.com>,
Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0500, John Stafford wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <c535c1d7-c47a-4f44-a4fb-5e85dc7d1dcb(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon
> >> such weak research methods comparatively.
> >
> > Do people really believe economics is a science? I do not. Nor does
> > anyone I know (and I work in academe).
>
> If those in academe think economics is not a science then it is small
> wonder we are producing such poor economists.

Show me how economics is a science.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: An Elementary Proof of Fermat's 'Last Theorem'
Next: JSH: They lie a lot