Article #95613 (95662 is last):
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Fools Rush In
Date: Thu Oct 15 11:03:51 1998
Osman Gani wrote:
>Economics is a science.
JCT: No it's not. Science uses standard units
of measurement and
accurately predicts how things work. Economics uses a variable as it's
unit of measurement and fails to predict how things work. It's closer
to predicting the future by reading the entrails of a dove. It's
called the Dismal Science because it does not deserve to be rated with
real sciences.
>And any science requires a rigorous training before one can get the
>hang of it.
JCT: Actually, real science does not require
rigorous training
before the average person can get the hang of it because it makes
sense. Economics requires rigorous training because it's full of
contradictions and does not make sense.
>It is clear to me that too many ignorant people are lecturing us on
>economics, without having the most sense of why economists use a
>peculiar form of reasoning and choose to talk about a specified
>subject.
JCT: The only reason you are upset is that
these uneducated
people are pointing out inconsistencies you can't handle in regular
English like most physicists and engineers do.
>Science is reserved for only those who are willing to pay the price
>for learning its way. If every fool understood science, we would
>have no reason to hear about Galileo or Newton or Adam Smith.
JCT: I see no reason that we wouldn't hear
about the great
Galileo or Newton, (please don't include Smith with real scientists)
just because fools can understand science. Science is made to be
understood by all, fools included.
>Why do fools rush to where angels fear to tread?
JCT: I guess you would be the one to know.
-------------------------------
From: rjmci@adan.kingston.net (Rick Jones)
Date: Thu Oct 22 08:56:51 1998
On 21 Oct 1998, johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel) wrote:
>>>Economics is a science.
>> JCT: No it's not. Science uses standard
units of measurement and
>>accurately predicts how things work. Economics uses a variable as
>>it's unit of measurement and fails to predict how things work. It's
>>closer to predicting the future by reading the entrails of a dove.
>>It's called the Dismal Science because it does not deserve to be
>>rated with real sciences.
>Science is "any knowledge coordinated, arranged, and systematized,"
>(Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary,) which ceretainly fits economics.
>Economics is about as systematized as you can get. If you try to get
>through a first year conomics course without systematizing your
>thinking you'll fail in three weeks.
JCT: It doesn't matter how systematized it
is if its basic tenets
are wrong. So it is not "knowledge." Knowledge means knowing something
right. Economics is knowing something wrong, anti-knowledge. It is
full of contradictions and on that basis alone cannot be a science.
That it uses a variable as its measuring unit is another flaw that
is
present in no other real science.
>Science has absolutely nothing to do with "predicting how things
>work," which itself is a nonsensical statement; you either meant
>"determine how things work" or "predict what will happen." The
>former is closer to the truth. The latter is the domain of Jeane
>Dixon. As to the concept of "science uses standard units of
>measurement" but economics "uses a variable as it's unit of
>measurement" (sic) that appears to be complete bullshit. What science
>has one unit of measurement? What unit of measurement is it?
I've
>never seen a physics prof who used KPa and nothing else. What science
>doesn't use variables?
JCT: Sure sciences use variables. But not
as the measuring stick.
Name me just one science whose measuring stick is a variable. Just
one.
>If economics isn't a science because it gets a lot of things wrong,
>then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he got most things
>wrong, too.
JCT: I didn't say that Economics is not a
science because it gets
a lot of things wrong. I said it's not a science because it can't get
things right.
>> JCT: Actually, real science does not require
rigorous training
>>before the average person can get the hang of it because it makes
>>sense. Economics requires rigorous training because it's full of
>>contradictions and does not make sense.
>Just so we're straight here, you're saying that economics requires
>rigourous training, but physics doesn't? Well, that will come
as one
>hell of a surprise to anyone who's taken physics at university, which,
>in my humble opinion, is so hard it makes economics look like Romper
>Room.
JCT: Actually, I scored 100% in my first year
Physics course
because it all made sense. And though it may be hard, it is rarely
hard to explain it in layman's terms.
>Strange that you don't need "rigorous training" for it and yet
>the engineering students have to go to school just as long as the
>economics wonks and they work twice as hard. Physics requires
>knowledge of theory and equations that would make an economics student
>puke. Or perhaps you would care to explain why medical students
>spend seven or eight years at THIER science. I must admit, I wasn't
>aware economics was more "rigorous" than other sciences. Oh, I
>remember why - it isn't.
JCT: Sure physics has sophisticated equations
but they are easy
to understand because they make sense. When I took my first year
economics course, there were so many things that did not make sense
that when I kept challenging the prof on them, other students told
me
to "quit picking on the prof." That could never happen in an
engineering of science course.
>No average person can "get the hang" of any science at a professional
>level without years of training.
JCT: As an electrical engineering graduate,
I've learned some of
the most sophisticated and powerful theories and techniques possible
and yet none of them have proven to be too hard for me to explain to
the average layman, from Laplace transformations into imaginary plane
to heat loss as a function of of temperature to the fourth power. I
have found that the real world is just not that difficult to explain
while the unreal world of "economics" keeps claiming that people can't
understand it because they aren't educated enough. And yet, I've
challenged the best economists on sci.economics and none have been
able to deal with my objections.
From: Shawn Wilson <swilso2@uic.edu>
Date: Thu Oct 22 09:48:23 1998
>>JCT: No it's not. Science uses standard units of measurement
>Actually, it's called 'the dismal science' because it deals with
>things like poverty, unemployment, depressions, etc. that most people
>consider to be unpleasant, gloomy, miserable, 'dismal'.
JCT: I think it's called the dismal science
because it can't get
things right. In every other science and engineering field, things
are
getting better and better. Only in the Economic system are things
getting worse and worse.
>>JCT: Actually, real science does not require rigorous training
>>before the average person can get the hang of it because it makes
>>sense. Economics requires rigorous training because it's full of
>>contradictions and does not make sense.
>Oh yeah? Then please expound on quantum electrodynamics for us, surely
>you have 'the hang of it'? And, despite the fact that Einstein didn't
>think it made sense, I'm sure you've been able to understand it? How
>about something simple like wave-particle duality? Or the nature
of
>consciousness?
JCT: You expound on it and I'll tell you if
you're right.
Actually, I haven't spent much time trying to understand it. But I'd
bet that if an expert in his field were to explain it, I and most
people would get a good grasp of what it's about. Besides, I'd bet
that you can't explain it either.
>>JCT: The only reason you are upset is that these uneducated
>>people are pointing out inconsistencies you can't handle in regular
>>English like most physicists and engineers do.
>I take it you've never actually talked to a physicist about his work?
JCT: I've never read a Physics book or article
that I didn't make
sense. I can't say the same thing about Economics.
>>JCT: I see no reason that we wouldn't hear about the great
>>Galileo or Newton, (please don't include Smith with real scientists)
>>just because fools can understand science. Science is made to be
>>understood by all, fools included.
>I look forward to your posts on wave-particle duality and quantum
>electrodynamics.
JCT: I look forward to yours though I'd bet
that it is just one
of your cheap shots in challenging someone to do something you can't
do yourself.
>> >Why do fools rush to where angels fear to tread?
>> JCT: I guess you would be the one
to know.
>Because fools don't know any better.
JCT: Right you are.
From: rvien@see.sig.com (Robert Vienneau)
Date: Thu Oct 22 17:22:20 1998
>>Actually, it's called 'the dismal science' because it deals with
>>things like poverty, unemployment, depressions, etc. that most people
>>consider to be unpleasant, gloomy, miserable, 'dismal'.
>Once upon a time, William Godwin proposed an utopia. Malthus
>countered. He argued that an improvement in living standards would
not
>last for long because of population pressure. (Malthus had many
>caveats.) Economics is called 'the dismal science' because of this
>Malthusian conclusion that an improvement in living standards for
the
>vast majority is not possible. I believe the phrase was due to Thomas
>Carlyle.
JCT: I think that this is a pretty stupid
argument. During the
700 years that England was on the interest-free Tally system, there
was a great standard of living for all. Most people spent less than
half their year in earning their livelihoods and the other half in
building great cathedrals and public works. That we can't operate the
economic system as efficiently as engineers operate all other
mechanical systems is only a function of the guys in charge of the
economic system. The Economic systems is the only system not under
the
technical jurisdiction of engineers which should explain why it is
continually malfunctioning. Letting a banking systems engineer at the
controls would solve that quick enough.
Article 1229 of alt.fan.john-turmel:
Path: freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bc726
From: johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
Newsgroups: can.politics,sci.econ,sci.engr,ncf.ca.lets,alt.politics.greens,alt.fan.john-turmel,alt.conspiracy
Subject: TURMEL: Re: Fools Rush In #2
Date: 24 Oct 1998 18:44:41 GMT
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <70t76p$65v@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet2.carleton.ca
X-Given-Sender: bc726@freenet2.carleton.ca (John Turmel)
Xref: freenet-news.carleton.ca can.politics:372320 sci.econ:96227 sci.engr:42950
ncf.ca.lets:672 alt.politics.greens:39862 alt.fan.john-turmel:622 alt.conspiracy:491570
From: rjmci@adan.kingston.net (Rick Jones)
Date: Thu Oct 22 08:56:51 1998
On 21 Oct 1998, johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel) wrote:
>>>Economics is a science.
>> JCT: No it's not. Science uses standard
units of measurement and
>>accurately predicts how things work. Economics uses a variable as
>>it's unit of measurement and fails to predict how things work. It's
>>closer to predicting the future by reading the entrails of a dove.
>>It's called the Dismal Science because it does not deserve to be
>>rated with real sciences.
>Science is "any knowledge coordinated, arranged, and systematized,"
>(Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary,) which ceretainly fits economics.
>Economics is about as systematized as you can get. If you try to get
>through a first year conomics course without systematizing your
>thinking you'll fail in three weeks.
JCT: It doesn't matter how systematized it
is if its basic tenets
are wrong. So it is not "knowledge." Knowledge means knowing something
right. Economics is knowing something wrong, anti-knowledge. It is
full of contradictions and on that basis alone cannot be a science.
That it uses a variable as its measuring unit is another flaw that
is
present in no other real science.
>Science has absolutely nothing to do with "predicting how things
>work," which itself is a nonsensical statement; you either meant
>"determine how things work" or "predict what will happen." The
>former is closer to the truth. The latter is the domain of Jeane
>Dixon. As to the concept of "science uses standard units of
>measurement" but economics "uses a variable as it's unit of
>measurement" (sic) that appears to be complete bullshit. What science
>has one unit of measurement? What unit of measurement is it?
I've
>never seen a physics prof who used KPa and nothing else. What science
>doesn't use variables?
JCT: Sure sciences use variables. But not
as the measuring stick.
Name me just one science whose measuring stick is a variable. Just
one.
>If economics isn't a science because it gets a lot of things wrong,
>then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist because he got most things
>wrong, too.
JCT: I didn't say that Economics is not a
science because it gets
a lot of things wrong. I said it's not a science because it can't get
things right.
>> JCT: Actually, real science does not require
rigorous training
>>before the average person can get the hang of it because it makes
>>sense. Economics requires rigorous training because it's full of
>>contradictions and does not make sense.
>Just so we're straight here, you're saying that economics requires
>rigourous training, but physics doesn't? Well, that will come
as one
>hell of a surprise to anyone who's taken physics at university, which,
>in my humble opinion, is so hard it makes economics look like Romper
>Room.
JCT: Actually, I scored 100% in my first year
Physics course
because it all made sense. And though it may be hard, it is rarely
hard to explain it in layman's terms.
>Strange that you don't need "rigorous training" for it and yet
>the engineering students have to go to school just as long as the
>economics wonks and they work twice as hard. Physics requires
>knowledge of theory and equations that would make an economics student
>puke. Or perhaps you would care to explain why medical students
>spend seven or eight years at THIER science. I must admit, I wasn't
>aware economics was more "rigorous" than other sciences. Oh, I
>remember why - it isn't.
JCT: Sure physics has sophisticated equations
but they are easy
to understand because they make sense. When I took my first year
economics course, there were so many things that did not make sense
that when I kept challenging the prof on them, other students told
me
to "quit picking on the prof." That could never happen in an
engineering of science course.
>No average person can "get the hang" of any science at a professional
>level without years of training.
JCT: As an electrical engineering graduate,
I've learned some of
the most sophisticated and powerful theories and techniques possible
and yet none of them have proven to be too hard for me to explain to
the average layman, from Laplace transformations into imaginary plane
to heat loss as a function of of temperature to the fourth power. I
have found that the real world is just not that difficult to explain
while the unreal world of "economics" keeps claiming that people can't
understand it because they aren't educated enough. And yet, I've
challenged the best economists on sci.economics and none have been
able to deal with my objections.
From: Shawn Wilson <swilso2@uic.edu>
Date: Thu Oct 22 09:48:23 1998
>>JCT: No it's not. Science uses standard units of measurement
>Actually, it's called 'the dismal science' because it deals with
>things like poverty, unemployment, depressions, etc. that most people
>consider to be unpleasant, gloomy, miserable, 'dismal'.
JCT: I think it's called the dismal science
because it can't get
things right. In every other science and engineering field, things
are
getting better and better. Only in the Economic system are things
getting worse and worse.
>>JCT: Actually, real science does not require rigorous training
>>before the average person can get the hang of it because it makes
>>sense. Economics requires rigorous training because it's full of
>>contradictions and does not make sense.
>Oh yeah? Then please expound on quantum electrodynamics for us, surely
>you have 'the hang of it'? And, despite the fact that Einstein didn't
>think it made sense, I'm sure you've been able to understand it? How
>about something simple like wave-particle duality? Or the nature
of
>consciousness?
JCT: You expound on it and I'll tell you if
you're right.
Actually, I haven't spent much time trying to understand it. But I'd
bet that if an expert in his field were to explain it, I and most
people would get a good grasp of what it's about. Besides, I'd bet
that you can't explain it either.
>>JCT: The only reason you are upset is that these uneducated
>>people are pointing out inconsistencies you can't handle in regular
>>English like most physicists and engineers do.
>I take it you've never actually talked to a physicist about his work?
JCT: I've never read a Physics book or article
that I didn't make
sense. I can't say the same thing about Economics.
>>JCT: I see no reason that we wouldn't hear about the great
>>Galileo or Newton, (please don't include Smith with real scientists)
>>just because fools can understand science. Science is made to be
>>understood by all, fools included.
>I look forward to your posts on wave-particle duality and quantum
>electrodynamics.
JCT: I look forward to yours though I'd bet
that it is just one
of your cheap shots in challenging someone to do something you can't
do yourself.
>> >Why do fools rush to where angels fear to tread?
>> JCT: I guess you would be the one
to know.
>Because fools don't know any better.
JCT: Right you are.
From: rvien@see.sig.com (Robert Vienneau)
Date: Thu Oct 22 17:22:20 1998
>>Actually, it's called 'the dismal science' because it deals with
>>things like poverty, unemployment, depressions, etc. that most people
>>consider to be unpleasant, gloomy, miserable, 'dismal'.
>Once upon a time, William Godwin proposed an utopia. Malthus
>countered. He argued that an improvement in living standards would
not
>last for long because of population pressure. (Malthus had many
>caveats.) Economics is called 'the dismal science' because of this
>Malthusian conclusion that an improvement in living standards for
the
>vast majority is not possible. I believe the phrase was due to Thomas
>Carlyle.
JCT: I think that this is a pretty stupid
argument. During the
700 years that England was on the interest-free Tally system, there
was a great standard of living for all. Most people spent less than
half their year in earning their livelihoods and the other half in
building great cathedrals and public works. That we can't operate the
economic system as efficiently as engineers operate all other
mechanical systems is only a function of the guys in charge of the
economic system. The Economic systems is the only system not under
the
technical jurisdiction of engineers which should explain why it is
continually malfunctioning. Letting a banking systems engineer at the
controls would solve that quick enough.