|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Apr 7, 2008 09:56
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
like using a cannon to kill a fly.
A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
"market" economists.
Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
The answer is a self evident truth yet they will all claim they are
too dumb to answer the question.
They'll suddenly not know the definition of "free trade" or "free
speech."
Why?
Because they will all openly admit they are too dumb.
The problem with the "I'm a moron in my field" dodge is . . .
well . . . you lose your credibility in your field.
It's gauche to use a cannon to kill a fly and therefore, the
_Scientific American_ article is in bad taste.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 95 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Apr 7, 2008 13:21
On Apr 7, 11:56Â am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
>
> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>
> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
> "market" economists.
>
> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
> The answer is a self evident truth yet they will all claim they are
> too dumb to answer the question.
>
> They'll suddenly not know the definition of "free trade" or "free
> speech."
>
> Why? ...
|
| Show full article (1.76Kb) |
|
| | 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Apr 7, 2008 15:01
>
>> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
>> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>
>> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
>> "market" economists.
>
>> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>
>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
>> The answer is a self evident truth yet they will all claim they are
>> too dumb to answer the question.
>
>> They'll suddenly not know the definition of "free trade" or "free
>> speech."
>
>> Why?
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter WebbPeter Webb Date: Apr 7, 2008 21:17
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
>
> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>
> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
> "market" economists.
>
> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer, because you
haven't defined the terms you are using. They are open to multiple
interpretations.
|
| Show full article (2.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Apr 7, 2008 22:29
>
>> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
>> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>
>> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
>> "market" economists.
>
>> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>
>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
> I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer,
Then you obviously have no credibility on the issue of economics.
Supposing you went to the hospital ER with a pain in your chest and
the doctor told you, "well I can't treat you until you define what you
mean by 'chest'?"
> because you
> haven't defined the terms you are using.
|
| Show full article (2.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: William ElliotWilliam Elliot Date: Apr 8, 2008 00:36
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> Most physical scientists who are only getting paid by a university
> have no conflicts of interest.
>
> They can say what they think is true and it won't change their income
> one way or another.
>
Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get your tenure
questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding slashed,
your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded 'scientiests'
who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.
For example, the guy who did damning research about use of lead was
broadsided by the lead companies.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter WebbPeter Webb Date: Apr 8, 2008 01:09
>>
>>> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
>>> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>>
>>> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
>>> "market" economists.
>>
>>> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>>
>>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
>> I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer,
>
> Then you obviously have no credibility on the issue of economics.
>
> Supposing you went to the hospital ER with a pain in your chest and
> the doctor told you, "well I can't treat you until you define what you ...
|
| Show full article (5.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 8, 2008 06:13
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:17:39 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>>
>>
> I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer, because you
> haven't defined the terms you are using. They are open to multiple
> interpretations.
I agree. The question seems interesting until one really gets down to a
serious answer. We DO enter the area of contractual law and the meaning
of words becomes important and things are not self-evident.
For instance, 'Free XXX' is not self-evident. Is there free trade when
what is traded is a necessity of life and is being sold by only one
concern?
Damning people with stupidity doesn't help either.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Apr 8, 2008 06:22
>> Most physical scientists who are only getting paid by a university
>> have no conflicts of interest.
>> They can say what they think is true and it won't change their income
>> one way or another.
> Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get your tenure
> questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding slashed,
> your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded 'scientiests'
> who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.
If critics aren't addressing the "errors" in the research then a smear
campaign will work at only a tiny minority of universities.
The truth -- generally conflicts of interest -- will always out.
Getting "smeared" for good research is just not a valid concern for
real scientists are real universities.
> For example, the guy who did damning research about use of lead was
> broadsided by the lead companies.
How did you find out about this injustice if the researcher was
silent?
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Apr 8, 2008 06:57
"Market" economists have been using these terms for decades without
definition. Now, all of a sudden, they want a definition.
What is any sane person going to conclude?
>>> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
>> I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer, because you
>> haven't defined the terms you are using. They are open to multiple
>> interpretations.
>
> I agree. The question seems interesting until one really gets down to a
> serious answer. We DO enter the area of contractual law and the meaning
> of words becomes important and things are not self-evident.
>
> For instance, 'Free XXX' is not self-evident.
But the statement "free speech precedes each and every free trade"
_is_ self evident.
Parsing a self evident truth doesn't somehow suggest each part is also
true or a self evident truths.
. . .
|
| Show full article (1.62Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
