On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Richard Fiero wrote:
> Agreed. There are some nested quotes above. I'd never attempt
> to criticize for being "unscientific." My response was to James
> A. Donald's troll which stated that one kind of economics was
> more scientific than another.
That's actually a accurate note. Some 'schools' of economics are in fact
more 'scientific' than others, irrespective of what definition of
'science' or 'economics' one might want to use. Some kinds of economics
are more accurate than others, and if one applies them competently you can
experience the advantage of efficiency.
> With respect to measuring things, econometricians do measure
> things, lots of things. Is what is being measured even
> interesting?
If it wasn't then nobody would be measuring it. It is the act that makes
it interesting. But then again, measuring pressure and temperature in and
of themselves is pretty boring, however if a bunch of people do it we get
weather prediction (such as it is). There is one class of science which
says 'label and measure everything, we'll find a use for it later'.
They're fond of 'statistical studies' and 'correlation constants'.
> About Faustine's pal who scorns soft sciences: it's what you
> get for hanging out with libertarians.
:)
We should do a study, determine if it's cause or effect...
"Excuse me Sir, ..."
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
