by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:18 am
by Jute » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:20 am
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."
by Risottia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:29 am
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:35 am
Risottia wrote:Economics is no science, at least in the Galileian meaning of it.
by Gaiserin » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:53 am
by Southern Hampshire » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:58 am
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:04 am
Gaiserin wrote:Your average everyday consumer doesn't necessarily need to understand Economics, since they mostly serve as tool for the producers.
Its bit nifty to respect/care about things you don't have any use for, even if they very much affect you.
by Dumb Ideologies » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:05 am
by The Liberated Territories » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:11 am
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:12 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:If the Austrian School can make sweeping statements without any kind of recourse to the scientific method or empirical data I don't see why the rest of us can't.
by Purpelia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:15 am
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:21 am
Purpelia wrote:How much of economics is predictive though? From what I understand it's not like physics where you can take a theory that describes something and use it to accurately predict how the system will behave each and every time with absolute precision.
by Purpelia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:25 am
Chestaan wrote:With 100% accuracy? No. But you can observe natural and experiments and perform your own to try to better understand what effects a policy, for example, will have. Think of clinical trials of new drugs. We may not be able to say with absolute certainty whether a drug will cure a particular ailment, but you run an experiment and have a control of people who don't take the drug contrasted against who are given the drug. Then you work out whether or not the drug is likely to have worked. Economists, especially econometricians, use experiments such as this.
Also I would point out that this doesn't devalue the work that economists do and in no way means that an uninformed person's opinion should be taken as seriously as somebody with experience in economics.
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:53 am
Purpelia wrote:Chestaan wrote:With 100% accuracy? No. But you can observe natural and experiments and perform your own to try to better understand what effects a policy, for example, will have. Think of clinical trials of new drugs. We may not be able to say with absolute certainty whether a drug will cure a particular ailment, but you run an experiment and have a control of people who don't take the drug contrasted against who are given the drug. Then you work out whether or not the drug is likely to have worked. Economists, especially econometricians, use experiments such as this.
Not that I am aware off. In clinical trials you actually have a strictly controlled environment, test group and control group and use established mathematical and statistical criteria to formulate your conclusions. So you do get 100% accurate results in that the accuracy of your results is 100% compliant with the required accuracy of the tests. In economics you can't have a controlled environment or test group. So you are rather limited in how much you can do to eliminate non essential variables.Also I would point out that this doesn't devalue the work that economists do and in no way means that an uninformed person's opinion should be taken as seriously as somebody with experience in economics.
Obviously not. But it does create a situation where people who are less than honest about their methods can still get their voice out which in turn does devalue the field. Doubly so since economics is a field that has been highly politicized ever since the first cavemen decided they had different ideas about how to handle the supply of rocks for their tribe.
by Purpelia » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:59 am
Chestaan wrote:Economic studies are peer-reviewed and any errors or dishonest cherry-picking of statistics will be found out with just as much certainty as in other fields. For example, I can't remember the names of those who conducted the study but it basically showed a negative correlation between debt and growth. Unfortunately some Republicans pounced on this and incorrectly stated that this proved that high debt caused lower growth. Anyway, long story short, there was found to be some error in the data used.It's pretty tough to hide mistakes and dishonest methods from peer review.
by Chestaan » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:02 am
Purpelia wrote:Chestaan wrote:Economic studies are peer-reviewed and any errors or dishonest cherry-picking of statistics will be found out with just as much certainty as in other fields. For example, I can't remember the names of those who conducted the study but it basically showed a negative correlation between debt and growth. Unfortunately some Republicans pounced on this and incorrectly stated that this proved that high debt caused lower growth. Anyway, long story short, there was found to be some error in the data used.It's pretty tough to hide mistakes and dishonest methods from peer review.
But as you your self said in the same post it's pretty easy to politicize things and turn even an unintended error into a political statement, let alone an intentional one. And the fix won't usually come until it's far too late.
by Estado Nacional » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:14 am
by Sacred United Rome » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:24 am
by Allet Klar Chefs » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:32 am
Sacred United Rome wrote:Thank democracy, the belief that the people should decide economic policy instaed of economist is stupid.
by Sacred United Rome » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:35 am
Economist don't have to be perfect. They simply have to be better than the people and they agree on most issues.Allet Klar Chefs wrote:Sacred United Rome wrote:Thank democracy, the belief that the people should decide economic policy instaed of economist is stupid.
What happens when economists disagree or simply also do not know what the fuck they're talking about but happen to have an alleged pedigree?
I remember Paul Krugman looking totally clueless on Channel Four News talking stridently about how the ECB pretty much did not exist a couple of months ago. This is a man with a Nobel Prize in Economics, literally the highest accolade possible in his field. Why does he deserve my respect?
by Estado Nacional » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:35 am
Sacred United Rome wrote:Democracy, the belief that the people should decide economic policy instead of economist is stupid.
by Sacred United Rome » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:40 am
by Senkaku » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:42 am
by Allet Klar Chefs » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:42 am
Sacred United Rome wrote:Economist don't have to be perfect. They simply have to be better than the people and they agree on most issues.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Asherahan, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dogmeat, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, Great Bulgarian Kingdom, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement