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 - The Johnny

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 216
31
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: HAY THE JOHNNY
« on: June 25, 2015, 12:10:39 am »

Depends on the zone that you will traverse thru, like, the city is not huge in terms of kilometrical size, but it is in terms of density of things, places and people; traffic and trasportation can become an issue, for example, travelling from southmost to northernmost usually takes 2 and a half hours because one needs to mix buses with metro and vans to get thru, while travelling from westmost to easternmost takes only 30-40 minutes because one only need to use the metro.

32
So what is your argument, exactly, Thwack? Because so far the only thing you seem to be willing  to commit to is that bad economists exist, which everyone seems to commit to. You SEEM to be saying that economics isn't a science because of this. Is that what you are saying? If it isn't, would you care to clarify your opinion? Because otherwise, you're just kind of snarking from the sidelines. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but if it IS what you want to do, I'd appreciate knowing  that so I can ignore you from here on out.
"I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics."


That was where I first brought up my view on this, and where you decided you needed to start making unfounded personal attacks. Now, are there good examples of economics out there that actually follows the scientific method? Sure, there is without a doubt. What I'm saying is that following the scientific method... Coming up with falsifiable predictions, analyzing data and experiments about them, and using that data to analyze your original hypothesis... That is not a common feature of the field of economics. Too much of mainstream economics, as taught by academia and accepted by professional society has abandoned these activities which are at the core of what it means to be a science.


This has been my stance the whole time, my arguments have all been to this end, you just keep derailing the discussion with ad hominem, straw men, and non sequiturs.

Except... you're just plain wrong, if you examine the academic field of economics. Or read any of the links that LMNO and I have provided. But when I explained that economics is indeed a social science and is practiced as such in academia, you simply pointed to the GOP, pundits, etc. as if that were some kind of valid rebuttal. Your goalposts shifted endlessly, so I simply resorted to making fun of you.

Have you ever been here before?  :lulz:
The mention of the GOP happened very early on, but your comments about economics being a social science pretty much get at the heart of my take on economics as not being a science... That being that I tend to agree with Feynman's take... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

Because of the success of science, there is a kind of uh, pseudo-science that social sciences are an example of, a science which is not a science, they donít do scientific, they follow the forms, uh, you gather data, you do so and so and so forth but they donít get any laws, they havenít found any, they havenít got anywhere yet, maybe someday they will, but it isnít very well developed.

But what happens is and even more mundane level, we get experts on everything, sort of of scientific expert that, they're not ??? they sit in a typewriter and makeup something like, oh, food grown with, fertilizer that is organic is better for you than food grown with fertilizer that isnít organic, maybe true but it might not be true, but it hasnít been demonstrated one way or another, but they sit there in the typewriter and they make up all this stuff as if its science and then become an expert on foods, organic foods and so on, there's all kinds of myths and pseudoscience all over the place.

Now, I might quite wrong, maybe they do know all this stuff, but, I donít think, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking your experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourselves, I know what it means to know something and therefore I, see how they get their information, and I can't believe that they know what they havenít done the work necessary, havenít done the checks necessary, I have a great suspicion, that they donít know that this stuff, and intimidating people, I think so, I, I donít know the world very well, but thatís what I think.


*************
*************
*************

SIT ALL DAY ON THE TYPEWRITER, WRITTING ABOUT LETTUCE AND ORGANIC FERTILIZER, YOLOSWAG.

33
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: HAY THE JOHNNY
« on: June 24, 2015, 03:20:21 am »

One day apperance? I'm sure I can make it, it would be interesting, although currently I live in Querťtaro, which is quite close. The city is a huge monster, but I lived there for 7 years, so I know some stuff about it if you need to know anything.

34

Dog is man's best friend.
A dog bit me.
That dog isnt really a dog cause it bit me and isnt my best friend.

:C

35
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Regret's Economics thread
« on: June 22, 2015, 07:33:39 pm »
Hasn't the GOP since the start of Reagan proven that there's no need to look at your predictions to see if they came true as long as you can pretend they did, or blame the other guy when you can't even pretend?

Are you positing that economists = GOP?

I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
No, just saying that actually showing predictions to be true or false is something that is ignored in politics today, and most of what you hear regarding economist is political in nature unless you're in the financial industry yourself.

That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.

Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Considering that I don't rely on the media for my information on economics, I find your view on me and my stance to be as uninformed as you accuse me of being.



If economics does follow the full scientific method, why do we still have experts in the field advocating viewpoints that have been shown false according to the data provided by real world experimentation?

For the same reason homeopaths and mediums advocate viewpoints that have been shown to be false according to the data provided by real world experimentation.

Bad economists = paid advertising by people in power
Homeopaths = naturalists hippies that dont trust the western Mantm medicine
Mediums = special snowflakes that can talk to people we cant.

By comparing so liberally three different things you are cheapening analysis of the things themselves.

economists =/= bad economists =/= homeopaths =/= mediums

36

Now im confused because there are two threads but, someone mentioned meteorology, and its a good example; just because you can describe something in a scientific manner does not equate with the ability to predict an outcome and that does not make it any less scientific, theres simply far too many volatile factors to take into account.

As some of you know, I'm a psychologist, and most of the time we work based on triangulation of factors to make diagnosis and treatment which is a constant process because the subject is in perpetual flow.

And well, thru a quick look at wikipedia, theres positive and theres normative economics, separating what "is" from "what ought be", so theres that too.

If anything, ive gotten from these discussions that some people blindly hate economists and its blurring their judgement about an entire field.

37
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Regret's Economics thread
« on: June 22, 2015, 09:55:07 am »
what do you mean by does not reflect on past predictions?

38
Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

There's a billion excuses to lay off people, one of them has been the machinization of production, which isnt necesarrily a matter of cost-efficiency most of the time, but rather to break the power of unions and make factory workers/employeees a malleable mass that can be subdued.

How many cases are there where a working hand is replaced with a bot that requires a huge investment and it also requires specialized maintenance by a specially trained engineer that ends up costing more than the original working hand?

But im sure you are pre-rich, so does it even matter?


Wait, are you saying that raising the minimum wage will or won't lead to layoffs?

Also, mechanization is necessary for the eventual advent of a post-scarcity society. People get screwed over by it now, but that's because society hasn't caught up with the technology and the technology isn't yet quite to where it needs to be. It hurts people now, but in a rather short time on a historical timescale (still rather long subjectively though, as compared to a human lifespan, I'll admit) things will be better than they ever were. Eventually it will seem absurd to expect people to work because there will quite visibly be only a tiny handful of things that need doing. Change should hopefully cascade upwards once there's nobody left for managers to manage.

Also regardless of which side is winning the conflict between capitalists/management and workers/proletariat has the primary effect of screwing over the consumer. A plague on both their houses.

You are missing the entire point of my argument and reframing the discussion at your convenience with that question - the answer being "sometimes", employers and owners are such assholes that they would rather mechanize production at a higher expense to themselves than to pay decent wages and rates to employees regardless of cost-efficiency. Mechanize until your employees will work for crumbs, if they start organizing and complaining, repeat step 1.

Sure, change and technology should cascade upwards someday just like trickle-down economics work, right? RIGHT? OH WAIT.

39
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.
Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.

Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.

He mad, sis.

I'd only like to offer the distinction between the more vocally wrong economists, which are the ones that are paid or lobbied to hold such opinions, like most if not all of the think-tank assholes, and the good economists no one has heard of because the powers that be arent interested in promoting them.

40
Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

There's a billion excuses to lay off people, one of them has been the machinization of production, which isnt necesarrily a matter of cost-efficiency most of the time, but rather to break the power of unions and make factory workers/employeees a malleable mass that can be subdued.

How many cases are there where a working hand is replaced with a bot that requires a huge investment and it also requires specialized maintenance by a specially trained engineer that ends up costing more than the original working hand?

But im sure you are pre-rich, so does it even matter?

41

"I swear furry sex is the only good thing about western society, we should meet again next month. Can you dress up as Scooby Doo?"

42

I meant that that was one of the main arguments ive heard against minimum wage... since more people will have money, and buy more things with it, then money would be worth less because more demand for items. Or something, it never seemed that minimum wage has such a great impact on things of such great scale.

43

But increasing the minimum wage will create inflation.


44

But we're extremely serious about having fun! Just look at Aneristic Illusions! Clearly this isnt your century!  :lulz:

45
"I troll u, LEL" in 3...2....1...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 216