- Original Message -
From: fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Example from my professional life: As is probably obvious, I'm not
> an economist - I'm a sociologist who takes economics very seriously
> and I sometimes use economic tools in my research. So I'm always
> in a positio
--- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"'I still maintain that Bunge's ridiculous assertion
that economics assumes greed/money as the only human
motivator is held by most people.'
How do you know?"
Bayes' rule. In print, television, or conversation,
that is the only description of the eco
--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given reasonable assumptions
> (axioms), does that mean that economic findings are
> valid without being 'scientific,' i.e. rigoriously
> tested?
If the logic is valid and the premises true, then the conclusion is sound and
therefore fully scientific.
"S
--- fabio guillermo rojas
"As is probably obvious, I'm not an economist"
I didn't see that at all. But then again, I'm a
flunkie, which probably is *really* obvious
Best to you,
jsh
__
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New J
--- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I think it is better to use other symbols, such as
*caps*, since when they get copied, one may want to
revert to u/l."
Sorry. Yahoo email doesn't give me many options. I
was hesitant about yelling, which I guess is what all
caps is. I'll try somet
fabio guillermo rojas:
>Similarly, I find that these articles that trash economics because it
is "psuedoscientific" do the same - they obsess over the wording (the
use of math) rather than think real hard about the intuitions behind
things. Of course, there is always bad research hiding behind eq
In a message dated 8/14/02 1:47:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
> their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
> papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of
> > The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
> > their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
> > papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
> That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
> that the *content* of the papers is fraudulent.
--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ALL CAPS lines are my emphasis.
I think it is better to use other symbols, such as *caps*, since when they
get copied, one may want to revert to u/l.
> NEO-AUSTRIAN
> ECONOMICS, EVEN CLAIM THAT THEIR THEORIES ARE TRUE A
> PRIORI.
This means a prio
> Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
> attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
> economics generally?
> David Levenstam
It's typical to say that bad science is X, and my political
opponents just happen to do X. IMO, it is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
> their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
> papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
that the *content* of the papers
Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
economics generally?
David Levenstam
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build their whole
careers by getting their names put on coauthored papers to which they have
not legitimately contributed.
Marc Poitras
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, john hull quotes Mario Bunge:
> "In short, THE USE OF UTILITY FUNCTIONS IS OFTEN
> MATHEMATICALLY SLOPPY AND EMPIRICALLY UNWARRANTED.
It is an interesting regularity that some non-economists -- particularly
philosophers and physicists, and Bunge is both -- seem to think ev
Please Remove
John Hull wrote:
>"Example 3: Subjective Utility
>"Most of the utility 'functions' occurring in
>neoclassical microeconomics...are not well defined--as
>Henri Poincare pointed out to Leon Walras. In fact,
>the only conditions required of them is that they be
>twice differentiable, the first der
"Holy entropy! It's boiling!" --G. Gamow
Here's a couple interesting passages from Mario
Bunge's "Chalratanism in Academia." I am hoping to
generate interesting replies--any will be welcome.
The ALL CAPS lines are my emphasis.
"To paraphrase Groucho Marx: the trademark of modern
culture is
17 matches
Mail list logo