Hello! dmiessler.com | grep understanding is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- dmiessler.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I think this is a very helpful link. It fixes all the keyboard mapping problems. Even for VMware server 2.0 http://communities.vmware.com/message/1091425
- Test.
- "Yes, it helps people through altered perception of the world, but so do three glasses of wine." ___ Oh, so atheists do not drink alcohol because it is too much like religion?...
- burden is on those who make the assertion, not on those who deny
- • Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion for the same reason. 'Theism' is an abstract noun which refers collectively to each organized religion which espouses the existence of...
dmiessler.com | grep understanding
dmiessler.com/about/
Scott Adams just wrote an interesting piece about how he thinks economists have a unique way of seeing the world. First, he loosely defines an economist as someone who seeks explanations for why things happen. I like that, and it fits with my favorite economist’s view as well (Malc
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
I would have to agree with that, particularly if you are talking about Austrian economics. Some of the brands of economics use "science" to endorse or justify certain government policies and regulations. The Austrians start from this axiom that humans act by using means to obtain ends. Their ends are individualistic and self-centered. The Austrians do not claim to know unrevealed individual preferences nor do they deduce the need for government interventionism in the market. Acting man is able to create working arrangements with other acting men that benefit all involved.
1 year ago
Here's a thought about economics as a science.
When was the last time that you heard an economist say " we were wrong on that point ".
:: crickets ::
There's always some "unforeseen boundary condition" or "except well this one time" that comes up so very, very often in economist's explanations of why their theory's predictive power was simply wrong.
Unlike science where the wrong thing gets disowned from time to time, economics seems to behave more like a religion ( and thus, perhaps, the immunity to cognitive dissonance ), when what's predicted fails there's always an explanation.
Any study where your theory lacks predictive power that is routinely incorrect should not dance under the name "science". Nota bene, few schools include economics in the college of natural science - for this reason?