To reinforce Arthur's point and, at the same time, refer to a recent post of my own, it is doubtful that the department of Education would sponsor a study to find out whether or not competition damages children.
Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 2:21 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) > Perhaps. But I think that " human curiosity, refined and compounded > over the generations" is that thing or set of things which is allowed by the > prevailing culture. So coming up with something at odds with cultural > biases (say quality of life is inversely related to GDP) will not be funded, > will not be taken seriously while something else which ties in with the > prevailing orthodoxy (say quality of life is positively related to GDP) will > be funded, will be paid considerable attention (maybe a spot on CNBC), etc. > > > arthur > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 2:05 PM > To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) > > > > > Agree with Brian, and so does "Albert" > > > > "It is theory that decides what can be observed." (Albert Einstein) > > But must theory, especially about something like the nature of the universe, > be based on ideology as opposed to human curiosity, refined and compounded > over the generations? In my previous posting, I used the term > "anti-ideological" which is how people like Copernicus and Galileo were > perceived by the ideologues or, more properly, theologues of their time. > However, neither C or G set out to attack or destroy anything. > Curiosity-driven, they wanted to get to the truth. That may be possible in > economics, and I used the example Kahneman and Tversky in my previous > posting. Yet it is far more difficult in economics because one is dealing > with phenomena that are mostly untestable and unprovable, except within the > carefully postulated bounds of their assumptions and first principles. > > Ed > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian McAndrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 10:41 AM > > To: Ed Weick; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) > > > > > > > > At 9:39 AM -0500 12/20/02, Ed Weick wrote: > > >Keith, I didn't mean to imply that you were an ideologue. And I do have > to > > >back off a bit and agree that not all economics is ideologically based. > > > > Hi Ed, > > Show me the economics that is not ideologically based. Who wrote it? > > An infallible human being? Ray's posting of Rupert Ross' thoughts on > > Aboriginal language showing that their ethics shaped their concepts > > of justice and education should cause us to experience a 'full stop' > > re universal truths. > > Your initial intuitions to this thread were accurate (IMHO) except > > for the 'crap'. I would call it, literally, non-sense. > > > > Take care, > > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
