Does it give you comfort to believe that someone, even nefarious people, "control" the economy?
Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.
Strongly held beliefs, even objectively false ones, like a child thinking Santa Clause brings presents, to the weak minded, do give comfort. I can understand.
Expressing scrutiny, or questioning those beliefs, tends to result in anger and resentment, such as you exhibit, rather than a Socratic or Thomistic evaluation and apologia, to use the Greek term here.
I’ve done plenty of evaluation through the many books that explain how the economy really works behind closed doors. I know Economics 101 is just as fake as History 101. I know who pulls the levers and how they do it.
Your view is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.
Does it give you comfort to believe that someone, even nefarious people, "control" the economy?
Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.
It gives me comfort to know how the scam works Agent Smith.
Strongly held beliefs, even objectively false ones, like a child thinking Santa Clause brings presents, to the weak minded, do give comfort. I can understand.
Expressing scrutiny, or questioning those beliefs, tends to result in anger and resentment, such as you exhibit, rather than a Socratic or Thomistic evaluation and apologia, to use the Greek term here.
I’ve done plenty of evaluation through the many books that explain how the economy really works behind closed doors. I know Economics 101 is just as fake as History 101. I know who pulls the levers and how they do it.
It’s quite elementary Agent Smith.
Your view is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.