nbohr1more on 16/9/2011 at 15:01
There used to be a "science" of aether. Most folks did not understand it. Einstein didn't really understand it either but he disproved it's validity by some simple thought experiments that boiled down the questions to their fundemental elements. Unfortunately, until we have something like Isaac Asimov's Psychohistory there will be no science of economics and therefore the validity of any of it's adherents cannot be held to the light of empirical truth...
Rug Burn Junky on 16/9/2011 at 16:21
That's roughly on par with the creationist drivel that says "oh, evolution is just a theory."
nbohr1more on 16/9/2011 at 18:15
Things have changed then? The last I heard all the predictive models were either highly specialized or folks were using variations of the four turks' work. Surely if we had a better science of economics (predicting human transactions) we would be able to easily predict the behavior of those pesky molecules in our atmosphere...
Rug Burn Junky on 16/9/2011 at 18:59
Your stance is profoundly justificatory of ignorance.
The fact that economic models may lack precision at a granular level doesn't mean that they lack insight altogether. It's like saying that meteorology is a sham because it can't predict the exact temperature a month from now.
Understanding the limitations is one thing. Even a healthy skepticism is another. But by rejecting out of hand what you fail to understand, you're just being a cynical uninformed douchebag. What you think are trenchant criticisms are in fact statements of which you should be embarrassed, especially when delivered with such unwarranted sarcasm.
june gloom on 16/9/2011 at 19:35
I thought we got rid of CCCHoad. Where do these people come from?
BEAR on 16/9/2011 at 20:29
I was wondering the same thing, it seems like the ratio is getting all skewed around here these days. Not that I can talk, I hardly post anymore :(
Rug Burn Junky on 16/9/2011 at 20:55
Toad was exceptional in that he waged a years-long crusade of active disinformation.
While misguided, these are merely faggots serving as fuel for discussion.
(And kitties even has an admirable smidgen of humility).
Muzman on 16/9/2011 at 22:50
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
There used to be a "science" of aether. Most folks did not understand it. Einstein didn't really understand it either but he disproved it's validity by some simple thought experiments that boiled down the questions to their fundemental elements.
Tedious aside: Aether theory had failed to be established experimentally several times before Einstein was even born. Yeah it took relativity to properly give an alternative and drive it from the popular consciousness (and that took a further 30 years), but big questions about the validity of Aether were very much in the air, so to speak, his entire life.
Einstein was extremely clever, no doubt about it, but he wasn't a superhuman idea machine operating in a vacuum (they just keep on coming folks) as myth would often have it .
nbohr1more on 17/9/2011 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Your stance is profoundly justificatory of ignorance.
The fact that economic models may lack precision at a granular level doesn't mean that they lack insight altogether. It's like saying that meteorology is a sham because it can't predict the exact temperature a month from now.
Understanding the limitations is one thing. Even a healthy skepticism is another. But by rejecting out of hand what you fail to understand, you're just being a cynical uninformed douchebag. What you think are trenchant criticisms are in fact statements of which you should be embarrassed, especially when delivered with such unwarranted sarcasm.
It was a weak comeback I'll admit. I certainly do not advocate willfull ignorance. To come clean: I am pretty much a hard-core utopian communist. I find it utterly wasteful that humans spend so much thought on an economy when there shouldn't be an economy. If we have to live in a capitolist world, at least we have clever (if a little harsh) folks like you to keep things running smoothly. I just prefer that all the rules be simplified and centralized. Leave all that thinking for other more important areas in science and engineering.
