An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Matt, hush now! Can you imagine what models economists would dream up with multiple universes and extra dimensions?
When the physicists finally figure out that all this stuff is bunkum, the economists will latch on to it with fury! Just like they did with equilibrium, even though the originators of neoclassical economics like Alfred Marshall understood from discussions with physicists that equilibrium was not a particularly useful idea. Marshall took it as an approximation until he could figure out something better, but his disciples took it as the last word.
A botanist on twitter posted this article, that people don't use reason to find truth and examine facts but rather to persuade people that their opinion is right. A big problem, they argue is that humans tend ignore contrary evidence and seek out only information that confirms their beliefs while professing to know truth.
I don't know but at times when we go off the rails, we are no longer open to reasoning or data that is contradictory.
As traders we may be annoying and leeches off society all the stuff we are accused of on MNE, but one thing we are really good at, is admitting we are wrong and learning to constantly look for evidence that we are wrong, testing and retesting our ideas against current AND historical data and then jettisoning false ideas. It usually requires adopting conflicting viewpoints and a negative capability of some sort. I find ideologues that have been proven wrong to be a massive irritant because that is what causes bad decisions and loss of money. Because we don't know the whole truth, it doesn't mean we don't know certain things are not true.
Ryan: "I find ideologues that have been proven wrong to be a massive irritant..."
Is there anything more ideological than an economic school (the Austrians) that claims from the outset (page 1 of almost any one of their books) that is is axiomatically true and that its axioms are equivalent to those found in geometry. Moreover, because Austrian economics is axiomatically true, any observations that conflict with its axiomatic omniscience is wrong, and therefore the observations needed examination! I stopped reading there. Never read anything more demented.
When I once said to a devotee of the Austrian school that Keynesian economics is axiomatically true and that evidence is an irrelevance to a theory that is by definition true, he walked off in a rage!
It's funny that when Austrians say geometry, they obviously mean Euclidean geometry, which is only true on plane surfaces, not curved surfaces. And since plane surfaces are essentially a Platonic ideal and do not exist, then the Austrian school is axiomatically wrong! QED.
Matt, if you're interested in a layman's guide, check out Lee Smolin's excellent book "The Trouble with Physics" and John Moffatt's equally excellent "Reinventing Gravity".
The heretics are usually right, and this small despised band, which includes Smolin and Moffat, are very slowly making inroads, but it'll be the experimental results from CERN and the Planck Satellite that'll send these fanciful theories down the toilet. The experimentalists have been wanting to give the theorists a bloody good kicking for years, and now they're about to! Talk to an experimental particle physicist or an observational astrophysicist about all this stuff about extra dimensions and the multiverse and they just think you're fu**ing nuts, and with good reason: there is no evidence for it and no need for it.
The great Richard Feynman was warning about against this madness decades ago, but down the rabbit hole the theorists went.
The blog Not Even Wrong is interesting in that it hasn't swallowed all this stuff about extra dimensions and the multiverse http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
The link to the Australian guy looks like its a comic act, rather than serious science. I'll listen to it later when it's time for bed.
"I got a "D" in this BS back when earning my B..." Einstein barely got his degree! He didn't like the physics of his time, and it's no surprise you don't like the physics of yours.
A botanist on twitter posted this article, that people don't use reason to find truth and examine facts but rather to persuade people that their opinion is right. A big problem, they argue is that humans tend ignore contrary evidence and seek out only information that confirms their beliefs while professing to know truth.
There are psychological studies backing this up. The employment of reason is much more about rationalization than discovery.
Prior to their publication, I had come to the same conclusion through the study of the history of philosophy. It's pretty obvious that philosophers argue to the conclusions they hold to be true based on assumptions that enable them to do this.My conclusions was that speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews. I view the sciences as spinoffs of philosophy and therefore subsets of philosophy using more restricted methodology by imposing mathematical and empirical criteria in addition to rational.
Matt, I knew I shouldn't have, but I started watching the video. I'm crying with laughter! It's fu**ing hilarious. Thank you!
PS. He's wrong about general relativity. Apart from evolution, it's the greatest theory ever devised. I agree with him on black holes. No evidence for it. General relativity does break down at very extreme physics and so people start believing in black holes, although aspects of black hole theory may have some validity. See "Reinventing Gravity" by Moffatt, a really brilliant thinker.
"speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews"
Once we accept all this, the logical extreme is that most of what we read and study is what experts think they can convince people to believe. A world full of salesmen. I'm ready to admit in economics or climatology, yes, obviously they have detached from reality and measurement, to where it is 80% cranks that make wild claims and don't have data that matches the models. But someone who studies the genes of a peach tree or a person that develops models of manifolds, or higgs bosons? *grumble* It's good they don't teach these ideas in highschool when kids distrust authority because it implies most of authority and the so called experts are completely full of it.
"speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews"
Once we accept all this, the logical extreme is that most of what we read and study is what experts think they can convince people to believe.
As they say, "it's complicated." From the logical point of view, a worldview is what gives language and communication it context and both meaning and data are context-dependent. In a very real sense then we are all prisoners of the prevailing worldview.
The prevailing worldview is the basis for the foundational assumptions of every model, beginning with descriptive propositions that function as logical "pictures" of state of affairs that can be asserted or denied as a fact. The truth of a descriptive proposition depends on whether the state of affairs that the proposition asserts )or denies) as is or is not the case, that is, corresponds to a fact. The propositional calculus is built on this. This is the logical basis of description upon which theoretical models as general descriptions are built. such models can be tested experiemtnally since hypotheses can be derived from them.
A worldview is not only descriptive but also normative, establishing rules like criteria, as well as prescriptive of socially accptable behavior. Absolutes exist only within a worldview, and no worldview is as yet comprehensive. Logic is not even completely transferable across worldviews. There is the story the anthropologist studying a Neolithic tribe that lived in a circle of dwellings that believed the pole in the center was the center of the universe. The tribe was nomadic and found no contradiction in taking the pole along with them on their wandering as setting it the center of another circle as the center of the universe. The anthropologist was, of course, perplexed at the flexibility of their logic. But if we look closely this is not too much different from cultural and historical change that we are familiar with ourselves, to which we have no difficulty adapting.
While the logic remains essentially the same across worldviews in which communication (translation) is possible, the contexts may vary considerably in the culturally determined and historically dependent worldviews are different.
Quite evidently, whoever shapes and controls a worldview wields tremendous power.
Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2] — Wikipedia
However, a worldview is an entangled web that cannot be disentangled consciously because a lot of it is just not consciously available — like water for the fish that swim in it. It is learned as a foundational aspect of the educational experience and socialization that all human being go through. Part of the socialization is acquiring the worldview of the community. Every human being exists within nested communities in which context determines meaning. These contexts are social, religious, political, etc. as will as philosophical in the sense that everyone has an ontology, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics, even tough these are not consciously articulated for the most part. One task of philosophers is to articulate them .
So certain aspects of the worldview can be shaped and controlled but not the entirety of the worldview, most of which remains implicit and not available to awareness. Having a worldview is a "transcendental condition" for experience and communications the Kantian sense. It is possible for worldviews to shift historically and when they do, they often call attention to themselves through contrast.
11 comments:
"the authors claim a crisis in fundamental particle physics. Mark points out that he thinks there's a connection to economics and I'd agree."
We've been reporting on this here for probably 2 years...
Matt, hush now! Can you imagine what models economists would dream up with multiple universes and extra dimensions?
When the physicists finally figure out that all this stuff is bunkum, the economists will latch on to it with fury! Just like they did with equilibrium, even though the originators of neoclassical economics like Alfred Marshall understood from discussions with physicists that equilibrium was not a particularly useful idea. Marshall took it as an approximation until he could figure out something better, but his disciples took it as the last word.
A botanist on twitter posted this article, that people don't use reason to find truth and examine facts but rather to persuade people that their opinion is right. A big problem, they argue is that humans tend ignore contrary evidence and seek out only information that confirms their beliefs while professing to know truth.
I don't know but at times when we go off the rails, we are no longer open to reasoning or data that is contradictory.
As traders we may be annoying and leeches off society all the stuff we are accused of on MNE, but one thing we are really good at, is admitting we are wrong and learning to constantly look for evidence that we are wrong, testing and retesting our ideas against current AND historical data and then jettisoning false ideas. It usually requires adopting conflicting viewpoints and a negative capability of some sort. I find ideologues that have been proven wrong to be a massive irritant because that is what causes bad decisions and loss of money. Because we don't know the whole truth, it doesn't mean we don't know certain things are not true.
Ryan: "I find ideologues that have been proven wrong to be a massive irritant..."
Is there anything more ideological than an economic school (the Austrians) that claims from the outset (page 1 of almost any one of their books) that is is axiomatically true and that its axioms are equivalent to those found in geometry. Moreover, because Austrian economics is axiomatically true, any observations that conflict with its axiomatic omniscience is wrong, and therefore the observations needed examination! I stopped reading there. Never read anything more demented.
When I once said to a devotee of the Austrian school that Keynesian economics is axiomatically true and that evidence is an irrelevance to a theory that is by definition true, he walked off in a rage!
It's funny that when Austrians say geometry, they obviously mean Euclidean geometry, which is only true on plane surfaces, not curved surfaces. And since plane surfaces are essentially a Platonic ideal and do not exist, then the Austrian school is axiomatically wrong! QED.
"When the physicists finally figure out that all this stuff is bunkum,"
Ha John how about it!
You may like this from a fellow from "Oz" its a riot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA
I got a "D" in this BS back when earning my BA (my only one....)... refused the lobotomy....
rsp,
Matt, if you're interested in a layman's guide, check out Lee Smolin's excellent book "The Trouble with Physics" and John Moffatt's equally excellent "Reinventing Gravity".
The heretics are usually right, and this small despised band, which includes Smolin and Moffat, are very slowly making inroads, but it'll be the experimental results from CERN and the Planck Satellite that'll send these fanciful theories down the toilet. The experimentalists have been wanting to give the theorists a bloody good kicking for years, and now they're about to! Talk to an experimental particle physicist or an observational astrophysicist about all this stuff about extra dimensions and the multiverse and they just think you're fu**ing nuts, and with good reason: there is no evidence for it and no need for it.
The great Richard Feynman was warning about against this madness decades ago, but down the rabbit hole the theorists went.
The blog Not Even Wrong is interesting in that it hasn't swallowed all this stuff about extra dimensions and the multiverse http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
The link to the Australian guy looks like its a comic act, rather than serious science. I'll listen to it later when it's time for bed.
"I got a "D" in this BS back when earning my B..." Einstein barely got his degree! He didn't like the physics of his time, and it's no surprise you don't like the physics of yours.
A botanist on twitter posted this article, that people don't use reason to find truth and examine facts but rather to persuade people that their opinion is right. A big problem, they argue is that humans tend ignore contrary evidence and seek out only information that confirms their beliefs while professing to know truth.
There are psychological studies backing this up. The employment of reason is much more about rationalization than discovery.
Prior to their publication, I had come to the same conclusion through the study of the history of philosophy. It's pretty obvious that philosophers argue to the conclusions they hold to be true based on assumptions that enable them to do this.My conclusions was that speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews. I view the sciences as spinoffs of philosophy and therefore subsets of philosophy using more restricted methodology by imposing mathematical and empirical criteria in addition to rational.
Matt, I knew I shouldn't have, but I started watching the video. I'm crying with laughter! It's fu**ing hilarious. Thank you!
PS. He's wrong about general relativity. Apart from evolution, it's the greatest theory ever devised. I agree with him on black holes. No evidence for it. General relativity does break down at very extreme physics and so people start believing in black holes, although aspects of black hole theory may have some validity. See "Reinventing Gravity" by Moffatt, a really brilliant thinker.
"speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews"
Once we accept all this, the logical extreme is that most of what we read and study is what experts think they can convince people to believe. A world full of salesmen.
I'm ready to admit in economics or climatology, yes, obviously they have detached from reality and measurement, to where it is 80% cranks that make wild claims and don't have data that matches the models. But someone who studies the genes of a peach tree or a person that develops models of manifolds, or higgs bosons?
*grumble* It's good they don't teach these ideas in highschool when kids distrust authority because it implies most of authority and the so called experts are completely full of it.
"speculative philosophies are rational justifications of prevailing or emerging worldviews"
Once we accept all this, the logical extreme is that most of what we read and study is what experts think they can convince people to believe.
As they say, "it's complicated." From the logical point of view, a worldview is what gives language and communication it context and both meaning and data are context-dependent. In a very real sense then we are all prisoners of the prevailing worldview.
The prevailing worldview is the basis for the foundational assumptions of every model, beginning with descriptive propositions that function as logical "pictures" of state of affairs that can be asserted or denied as a fact. The truth of a descriptive proposition depends on whether the state of affairs that the proposition asserts )or denies) as is or is not the case, that is, corresponds to a fact. The propositional calculus is built on this. This is the logical basis of description upon which theoretical models as general descriptions are built. such models can be tested experiemtnally since hypotheses can be derived from them.
A worldview is not only descriptive but also normative, establishing rules like criteria, as well as prescriptive of socially accptable behavior. Absolutes exist only within a worldview, and no worldview is as yet comprehensive. Logic is not even completely transferable across worldviews. There is the story the anthropologist studying a Neolithic tribe that lived in a circle of dwellings that believed the pole in the center was the center of the universe. The tribe was nomadic and found no contradiction in taking the pole along with them on their wandering as setting it the center of another circle as the center of the universe. The anthropologist was, of course, perplexed at the flexibility of their logic. But if we look closely this is not too much different from cultural and historical change that we are familiar with ourselves, to which we have no difficulty adapting.
While the logic remains essentially the same across worldviews in which communication (translation) is possible, the contexts may vary considerably in the culturally determined and historically dependent worldviews are different.
continued
continuation
Quite evidently, whoever shapes and controls a worldview wields tremendous power.
Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2] — Wikipedia
However, a worldview is an entangled web that cannot be disentangled consciously because a lot of it is just not consciously available — like water for the fish that swim in it. It is learned as a foundational aspect of the educational experience and socialization that all human being go through. Part of the socialization is acquiring the worldview of the community. Every human being exists within nested communities in which context determines meaning. These contexts are social, religious, political, etc. as will as philosophical in the sense that everyone has an ontology, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics, even tough these are not consciously articulated for the most part. One task of philosophers is to articulate them .
So certain aspects of the worldview can be shaped and controlled but not the entirety of the worldview, most of which remains implicit and not available to awareness. Having a worldview is a "transcendental condition" for experience and communications the Kantian sense. It is possible for worldviews to shift historically and when they do, they often call attention to themselves through contrast.
Post a Comment