Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 3418
31
Did you see the piece on NPR that put it to a blind taste test?  It was really interesting.  The takeaway was that, if washed well enough first, it basically really does taste like a tough piece of calamari.

The magic of deep frying!

Ok, but who wants a tough piece of calamari?

I feel like that wouldn't be a very hot seller.

HELLO.  TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP WE'RE DISCUSSING?

True. Only you wouldn't market them as calamari, you'd market them as an ancient Chinese medicine that Westerners are afraid to eat, and you would dry them, salt them, and sell them in waxed paper bags, three for $26.99.

32
Did you see the piece on NPR that put it to a blind taste test?  It was really interesting.  The takeaway was that, if washed well enough first, it basically really does taste like a tough piece of calamari.

The magic of deep frying!

Ok, but who wants a tough piece of calamari?

I feel like that wouldn't be a very hot seller.

33
Can I just say as someone who knows almost literally nothing about economics, that this entire thread has been utterly fascinating. For several reasons.

Also, Nigel, I love you even harder.

 :kiss:

34
I think that you are a victim of confirmation bias.


35
 
Second, I love your continued use of yourself and a few others here as the true authorities of what does and doesn't constitute a science. It's even more amusing to watch you place yourselves higher than actual experts in the fields and their takes on it.

Yes, that's why we keep posting links to actual experts. Sounds legit.

Third, you'll probably want to read the links again if you feel they don't support my claim. Every link I posted contains people stating the same thing I am... That economics is not a science.

:lulz: That's not what Shiller said, at all.

Forth, you really should learn the basics of debate. Your continual misdirection, refuting unclaimed points, and insults do you little justice if you want to be taken as someone with any ability for rational thought or intellectual prowess.

Yes, I shall go forth and learn the basics of debate! I know nothing of this. I want ppl to think im smrt, everybody currently sees me as a blithering idiot.


36
Did you see the piece on NPR that put it to a blind taste test?  It was really interesting.  The takeaway was that, if washed well enough first, it basically really does taste like a tough piece of calamari.

The magic of deep frying!

Yeah... they basically went in search of the rumor that it was actually being served as calamari in restaurants, and when they were unable to find any evidence for that, they went with "but COULD it hypothetically be served as calamari?" and then concluded that if it were "prepared properly" they could see it being passed off for calamari.

I was like, really NPR?

It's the MythBusters school of journalism: just because a terrible thing didn't happen doesn't mean we shouldn't blow shit up anyway.

 :lulz:

37
Did you see the piece on NPR that put it to a blind taste test?  It was really interesting.  The takeaway was that, if washed well enough first, it basically really does taste like a tough piece of calamari.

The magic of deep frying!

Yeah... they basically went in search of the rumor that it was actually being served as calamari in restaurants, and when they were unable to find any evidence for that, they went with "but COULD it hypothetically be served as calamari?" and then concluded that if it were "prepared properly" they could see it being passed off for calamari.

I was like, really NPR?

39
No, what I've been doing has been very specific... saying that economics itself, as a field, does not use the scientific method, and specifically the components of developing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing the hypothesis against collected data, as a integral component of itself. While yes, there are examples of where it is used, it is not a defining feature, as evidenced by the continued acceptance as a valid viewpoint, things such as the Austrian school, Laissez-faire capitalism, and the Chicago school.

OK, I tormented myself by filtering through that shitshow of posturing to find the one paragraph that has some substance.

So you are now backing away from the "social science is not science" claim now, and are back to "economics as a field doesn't use the scientific method"? OK. Since myself, Cain, and LMNO have refuted this claim, and since you have clearly declined to actually read the links we've posed, as evidenced by the fact that you reposted one I posted earlier and it doesn't support your views, even though apparently you think it does, I think I am done talking to you.

42
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: HAY THE JOHNNY
« on: June 25, 2015, 04:26:51 am »
Go drinking with the Jalisco New Generation.

And THIS? I'll goddamn marry one if I get half a chance.

Just so I can show him what.

43
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: HAY THE JOHNNY
« on: June 25, 2015, 04:25:43 am »
STAY OUTTA THE DAMN VOLCANO.

 :sad: I'll TRY.

44
We should make this a thing. They'd go for it, if we present it properly.



It's a good thing they're inverted!  :lulz:

45
And then there's this article, which I suspect it's possible that both of us will agree with: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/

Even as biological sciences start folding in lessons from data analysis that is more typical of social sciences, social sciences seem to be scrambling to adopt the language and methods of hard sciences, which I think is a mistake. Social science is statistics to hard science's calculus; both employ methodological approaches that are uniquely suited to different types of data, and both are advancing apace. You can even have the most complex of both worlds in fields like epidemiology and epigenetics. Copping the language of hard science by bastardizing its language in an effort to gain legitimacy is embarrassing and reflective of an inferiority complex that is, IMO, unnecessary.

I also think that the hangup on the idea of experimental data is a throwback to a more primitive era of science when, lacking sophisticated technology or data-collecting methods, it was the best we could do. Many gains in our knowledge of molecular biology and brain function are dependent on "experiments" that are simply advanced methods of observation. Does that render them not science? I would beg to differ, and as our observational technology improves, we will increasingly have methods for looking inside a living cell and observing mechanisms that could previously only be inferred from experimental machinations that attempted to approximate true observation of processes too small to observe directly.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 3418