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.
With a more ethical finance system, less people would be dependent on jobs, including those with the National Security State, and the need to justify those jobs - however needless or counterproductive those jobs may be.
BTW, what Trump did is just repeat what Nixon-Kissinger did in going to China to talk directly with Mao, in order to split China from the USSR.
My money is on the bet that Kissinger was behind this move by Trump and advised him how to handle it.
Trump has adopted a realist foreign policy in the manner of Kissinger as opposed to the longstanding ideal foreign policy of the US since Jimmy Carter.
US foreign policy has also been that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, which was based on the Mackinder stance of controlling the Eurasian land mass as the "world island." I have described this in some detail previously.
Trump is shifting to Kissinger's great power POV, which is consistent with multipolarism.
Trump just effectively declared an end to unipolarism and the American empire ruled by military force rather than economic competition.
Not that Trump doesn't want a dominant military. He does if only to keep feeding the MIC, on which the US economy runs, since it is distributed through the US. He just doesn't want to continue "wasting money" on foreign adventures instead of MAGA domestically.
I am 100% behind this scenario, but I disagree about DJT's vision of how to MAGA domestically in terms of policy.
DJT can change direction but he cannot solve the principle problem the US faces this way. That problem is divisiveness and his approach is based on harnessing it rather than overcoming it.
In his defense he knows this, but he has no alternative at this stage of the game. He has to survive and win before that becomes a political possibility, and "politics is the art of the possible."
Anyway, regarding foreign policy, DJT is doing the opposite of what HRC would have done based on her record, and likely Bernie, too, since he would have become a tool of the deep state (Brennan, Clapper, etc.), being relatively uninterested in FP and clueless about it.
So FP wise, things are headed in the right direction from my POV, and I can see how DJT and work together to resolve some key obstacles to a more peaceful world. Whether that will happen remains to be seen and to what degree. The opposition to it is formidable.
I don't recall that G.W. Bush's stimulus checks met much opposition because all citizens except the rich received them. Likewise, Social Security is extremely popular too since: 1) It is not means tested. 2) Most people prefer cash over meddlesome, implicitly blame-the-victims social programs - probably including very many of those who must work therein.
Not that equal cash distributions to all citizens is sufficient* but its almost certain popularity and its much more principled solution to the problem of how fiat shall be created (beyond normal deficit spending by the monetary sovereign for the general welfare) are strong indicators that it IS part of any genuine solution.
*Because of, for example, the problem of rents, especially wrt having a place to live, since more income to renters means more rents that can (and likely will) be extracted from them.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Matthew 5:9
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Romans 12:9
And from the Old Testament:
The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Psalm 11:5
Rather than be pro-war, Bible believers should be pro-justice so as to eliminate the cause of so many of them, e.g. the Great Depression was a major cause of WWII and the inherently unjust credit creation system was a major cause of the Great Depression.
Saw that. Ironic how an old Nixon Cold Warrior who lambasted the anti-war movement as a speech-writer for Nixon-Agnew is now the peacenik, while the "left" is on the warpath.
Just had some friends return from the States. They were shocked how divided people were on the streets (polarised) over Trump. It amazes me: - that same mind that long ago figured out how to get fire from a stick .... now a huge great emotional cloud with concepts flying around in it like lightning; and when the storm clears ???? What will be the distribution???
... all those Reserve assets eventually made the depositories insolvent... Franko
Central bank purchases create new fiat and fiat creation should only be done for/by the monetary sovereign and/or perhaps by equal fiat distributions by the cb to all citizens to avoid violating equal protection under the law. So QE violates equal protection under the law. So for that matter does interest on reserves (IOR), loans from the discount window and the purchase of sovereign debt EXCEPT directly from the monetary sovereign.
Ironically, ethical fiat creation should improve the solvency of banks by improving the ability of debtors to pay - especially because of the missing interest problem since not all interest is recycled but leaks into savings.
Well that sounds all swell but here in the real world we have Art Degree morons who think “banks lend out the reserves!” while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories...
Well that sounds all swell but here in the real world we have Art Degree morons who think “banks lend out the reserves!” while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories.
Who are the non-art degree people that know this and write about it? Please cite references.
“What’s the difference between a BS in Economics at Wharton and BA major in economics in a liberal arts program? We get this question all the time, and the answer comes down to curriculum and teaching and learning methods.
(Yo: METHODOLOGY....)
TEACHING & LEARNING METHODS
Wharton classes focus on hands-on problem solving, using teaching methods such as case studies, negotiations, group work, and simulations in addition to traditional lectures. Students learn by starting with a problem or concrete example. After fully understanding the problem, they look for solutions and then begin to examine theories to see how they might apply.
In a liberal arts setting, students often learn by starting with a theory or abstract idea. After fully understanding the theory, they then look for problems to understand how the theory applies.“
An Art degree methodology is reverse of a Science degree... the Art method STARTS with the theory FIRST... and THEN looks for a situation to apply it...
Science starts with observation and analysis of a problem and THEN forms a theory in the process of solving the problem... this is how I and all other Science degree people have been ideally trained...
Here: “In a liberal arts setting, students often learn by starting with a theory or abstract idea. After fully understanding the theory, they then look for problems to understand how the theory applies.“
This describes Minsky’s “stability creates instability!” Theory TO.... A.... TEE...
while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories. Franko
This what you're talking about, Franko?
The leverage ratio’s core intractable problem is that it treats all bank assets as having the same level of risk, from deposits at the central bank and Treasury securities to leveraged loans, loans to small businesses and credit card loans. from BankThink Setting the record straight on why leverage ratio must change
Looks close but that writer MAY also, AT THE SAME TIME, think “banks lend out the reserves!” so the person perhaps would not see the problem... iow the writer may just be self interested banker who wants to increase roe ...
Matt, I question the degree to which case study method can be called scientific. If you admit it is, they have have to admit a lot of stuff that you consider "art."
I would say that the case study method is an attempt to adapt scientific method to areas in which it doesn't completely apply to extract as much data-based information as possible.
The case study method relies heavily on stochastic methods and simulations, which you don't seem to think is doing science.
I don't think that this gets DJT into the scientific community as you have defined it.
Don’t get wrapped around the wheel with Trump.... there is a larger point about cognitive methodology I am trying to make based on the organization of the academe...
Mike also I believe earned this same degree as Trump at Penn and he gets it.....
Trump has said “I hate to break the news to you but you never go bankrupt because govt just prints the money” which is at least a step away from the debt doomsday theory....
It the stochastic methods are only being used to analyze a theory that has already been established and accepted by the Arts community then yes that is not doing science....
Remember when Mike was last on with Stuart Varney on Fox... Varney (Art degree from LSE) says "you print money, youre Weimar Germany!" .. that is his theory he already has it... so then he goes all around looking for where it fits...
Or Milton Freidman "inflation is always a monetary phenomenon..." then we do QE1 and QE2 and increase reserve assets by 13,000% and prices collapse... doesnt matter to Freidman though as he already has his theory established.... so now he just waits until he sees reserves increase and some prices go up (due to OPEC monopoly power) and he says "see! I told you!"...
Or Minsky going all around saying "stability creates instability! stability creates instability!... stability creates instability!....stability creates instability!" like one of those dumb pull string dolls... so he has his theory already established, then he just sits and waits until there is a somewhat stable period followed by some instability (duh) and says "see! I told you!"....
This is the way these people have been trained to think in these Art degree programs... its the reverse of the scientific...
Matt, science courses at the undergrad level are presented at the level of theory. You learned the theory and are asked to solve math problem on the basis of your knowledge of they theory and your math background. Undergrad science course are not heavy on labs and measurement but theory and math, for example, translating word problems into equations and solving them.
"Undergrad science course are not heavy on labs and measurement"
Yes they are... mine was I would say... I had labs, design projects, etc.. I'm watching some go thru it now and can see what they are doing...
Look this is not me saying this I am just referencing Wharton materials here.. they are the leading business school in the country and they make a POINT to teach Economics as a Science degree program and they have the best people out there... very successful and effective people in material business firms...
Their MBA is a Master of SCIENCE in Finance and Accounting... same methods...
You go to one of these Wharton people working in corporate finance and say "hey! your debt is unsustainable!" and they will laugh right in your face because they know they can pay it as the financing was designed that way...
As opposed to all of these Art degree people working in govt policy circles... ie unqualified...
Matt, you are defining what "science" means. That's perspectival. Moreover, you are including in "science" training" what you want and excluding what you don't want. Unconvincing.
Business school is "science" in a similar way to psych and social sciences. It's neither a physical science nor a life science. Microeconomics, even that the undergrad level, has a lot of case study.
All of these "sciences" are heavily stochastic owing to the measurement conditions and inherent fuzziness of the variables in comparison to the "hard sciences." That is what they are called "soft sciences," which you often equate with "arts."
Accounting is not a "science," no matter what the degree is called. Nor is math, even though it is sometimes (incorrectly called a science). Both of these subjects are syntactical, concerned with notation. They are methodological tools that can be used in doing science. although accounting would apply only to business & finance, and social science, in particular economics.
Engineering is applied natural science. Medicine is applied life science.
Business is neither pure science nor applied science in a sense that is anything like engineering or medicine. it sometimes uses uses aspects of science and tools of science. Well, so does contemporary philosophy.
You’ve done fifty, sixty, a hundred laps around the sun – ‘what do you want’?
Without vision the people perish.
Art is vision. It is also purpose, commitment, passion; experience and direction. It rises up from the heart of man in harmony with Life. It can be felt in all great music, art, literature and philosophy. From creativity, it blossoms into self-knowledge; then knowledge of the Divine. Its seed is in the heart; not the lower mind. Repeat ... not the lower mind (including yours and mine and the ‘I’ that swims in it).
Then mind gathers ideas and knits them into a plan to materialise, express the vision. That’s science. A city is an expression of a vision, albeit a lowly polluted egoistic one. So is a nation. So is humanity’s creativity. Mind, when it knows its proper place, is a grateful servant of the heart. Without the heart, mind tends to chaos (look outside of your window).
The problem with science at the moment (mind as one atom) is they think the universe, despite its infinite extent, is all nuts and bolts over which they have dominion. Ha! All of their advances too, come from creativity. Mind does the legwork
“Bernanke attended Harvard University in 1971[25], where he lived in Winthrop House, as did the future CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, and graduated with an A.B. degree, and later with an A.M. in economics summa cum laude”
“Accounting is not a "science," no matter what the degree is called. ”
Well Wharton claims it is teaching it via a scientific methodology and calling it therefore a Science Degree at award....
Whether it is on someone’s subjective list of “sciences” is immaterial to this discussion.... this discussion is about details of the methodology of the training/education...
What I am claiming is that you are inconsistent with the use of terms, using them as it suits you rather than consistently.
Define what you mean by science and not-science and "arts" and not-arts in terms of set boundaries, and whether they are complement in such as way that there is no middle, as you seem to assume.
Then maybe we can get onto solid ground.
Now this conversation is going around in a circle. I've addressed these issues already and you just continue to repeat your POV without acknowledging the issues raised.
Either you are open to debate or else are set on maintaining a rigid position based on a set of assumptions that is in dispute. The latter is were inquiry ends and it is useless to pursue it further.
Tom you have formed a theory already in you mind (what is or isn’t a “science”) before you’ve examined the data...
You are confusing a DISCIPLINE with a METHODOLOGY...
Ever hear of the “scientific method “?
All Disciplines can be taught via scientific method and the degree is awarded as a science degree.... the student is then trained to approach any analysis scientifically...
but that writer MAY also, AT THE SAME TIME, think “banks lend out the reserves!” Franko
The reason banks can't lend out reserves, except perhaps vault cash, is the non-bank private sector may not have accounts of their own at the Central Bank to receive them!
Matt, that Wikipedia article, while correct as a quick summary, involves a many controversial points.
It is based on physics as the paradigm of scientific method, and this has resulted in a lot of issues among those that argue about these questions professionally.
From this POV almost nothing but physics and and chemistry are real sciences.
Many people have argue that this paradigm of science is to narrow to fit the conception of science that most people have, which is much looser and would include subjects that don't fit this narrow paradigm.
Although the life sciences, psychology and social sciences don't fit this paradigm, many people regard them as being scientific to the degree that scientific procedure is applied in them, albeit much more loosely than physics and chemistry, owing to the nature of the subject matter.
In fact, there is a vast literature on the arguing for many positions from strict positivism to anarchism.
Putting forth one POV as self-evident is naive and citing selectively is not arguing in the framework of iniquity based on debate where answering objections is required.
To summarize, you are unqualified for this debate. I would suggest you take time to prepare properly, or give it up.
Tom you have formed a theory already in you mind (what is or isn’t a “science”) before you’ve examined the data...
You are confusing a DISCIPLINE with a METHODOLOGY...
Ever hear of the “scientific method “?
Matt, do you read my comments in full. This is the point I have been making.
"Science" really means "the sciences" which is a set with multiple members. The sciences are different disciplines in the set of set "science" which is not a discipline but a category.
The question is about the members of the set, to distinguish "science" as a set of disciplines from non-science.
Scientific method is not a discipline it is a method. Scientific method is void of content. is a tool for dealing with content, which is the subject matter of different disciplines.
One criterion of "science" as a set of disciplines is that the disciplines that fall under the category use scientific method.
There are different POVs on how to interpret this.
Some include only the natural sciences where formal theory based on deterministic equations that generates hypotheses testable by controlled experiments is "real science," and all the other sciences are merely analogs that resembles science but are not really doing science but a mixture of science and other things like speculation. Einstein was even willing to rule out quantum mechanics on this basis and he never came to accept that real science could be anything but deterministic.
Most physicists thought that conception of science was to tight, but a lot of them are skeptical about anything but natural science being real science.
Others hold that just using scientific method as fits the limitations of the disciple is sufficient to categorize the discipline as science, but there is wide disagreement about what fits, some arguing for a looser interpretation than others.
On the loose end of the range is Paul Feyerabend and his anarchistic POV, which asserted that trying to bound science limits its creativity and people should just STFU and let serious people cary on with their reproach without bothering them or trying to tether them with nonsense. I tend to agree with Feyerabend's position, but it is a minority view.
The widespread view is that formalization and quantification exemplify "science," and measurement and observation, including by instruments, must be available for testability, in addition. This is a relaxation of the strict positivist view, but it is tight enough to distinguish science as empirically-based inquiry from inquiry that is not empirically based.
But this is a heuristic that is not written in stone and from the POV of professionals in this field, it would have to specified more precisely, which leads back to the controversies.
So there is the ordinary language use of the term "science," and the technical debate over the correct use of terms based on application of logic, which is a discipline that studies method in a way that is similar to math. Some hold that math is a branch of logic rather than a separate discipline independent of logic as the discipline that deals with notations.
45 comments:
... washing out the augean stables looks easier.
Putin dealing with Russian oligarchs was one thing, but American oligarchs ...! Maybe that's why the meeting went over time.
I suppose that's one way to spin it....
Yes, I don't really know. Wonder what they did talk about ...?
Whatever it was Trump got schooled.
With a more ethical finance system, less people would be dependent on jobs, including those with the National Security State, and the need to justify those jobs - however needless or counterproductive those jobs may be.
... washing out the augean stables looks easier.
Putin dealing with Russian oligarchs was one thing, but American oligarchs ...! Maybe that's why the meeting went over time.
That is exactly what I was thinking. See Trump Hercules? Will see.
Makes for one hell of a reality show.
BTW, what Trump did is just repeat what Nixon-Kissinger did in going to China to talk directly with Mao, in order to split China from the USSR.
My money is on the bet that Kissinger was behind this move by Trump and advised him how to handle it.
Trump has adopted a realist foreign policy in the manner of Kissinger as opposed to the longstanding ideal foreign policy of the US since Jimmy Carter.
US foreign policy has also been that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, which was based on the Mackinder stance of controlling the Eurasian land mass as the "world island." I have described this in some detail previously.
Trump is shifting to Kissinger's great power POV, which is consistent with multipolarism.
Trump just effectively declared an end to unipolarism and the American empire ruled by military force rather than economic competition.
Not that Trump doesn't want a dominant military. He does if only to keep feeding the MIC, on which the US economy runs, since it is distributed through the US. He just doesn't want to continue "wasting money" on foreign adventures instead of MAGA domestically.
I am 100% behind this scenario, but I disagree about DJT's vision of how to MAGA domestically in terms of policy.
DJT can change direction but he cannot solve the principle problem the US faces this way. That problem is divisiveness and his approach is based on harnessing it rather than overcoming it.
In his defense he knows this, but he has no alternative at this stage of the game. He has to survive and win before that becomes a political possibility, and "politics is the art of the possible."
Anyway, regarding foreign policy, DJT is doing the opposite of what HRC would have done based on her record, and likely Bernie, too, since he would have become a tool of the deep state (Brennan, Clapper, etc.), being relatively uninterested in FP and clueless about it.
So FP wise, things are headed in the right direction from my POV, and I can see how DJT and work together to resolve some key obstacles to a more peaceful world. Whether that will happen remains to be seen and to what degree. The opposition to it is formidable.
But so far, awesome.
That problem is divisiveness ... Tom Hickey
I don't recall that G.W. Bush's stimulus checks met much opposition because all citizens except the rich received them. Likewise, Social Security is extremely popular too since:
1) It is not means tested.
2) Most people prefer cash over meddlesome, implicitly blame-the-victims social programs - probably including very many of those who must work therein.
Not that equal cash distributions to all citizens is sufficient* but its almost certain popularity and its much more principled solution to the problem of how fiat shall be created (beyond normal deficit spending by the monetary sovereign for the general welfare) are strong indicators that it IS part of any genuine solution.
*Because of, for example, the problem of rents, especially wrt having a place to live, since more income to renters means more rents that can (and likely will) be extracted from them.
Trump may be biased anti-war like you guys... “counter puncher” ie doesn’t want to be seen starting it....
Anti-war isn't a "bias", unless of course you are a moron.
Pat has one up:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2018/07/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii/
You can have a bias around an issue either way pro or anti...
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Matthew 5:9
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Romans 12:9
And from the Old Testament:
The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Psalm 11:5
Rather than be pro-war, Bible believers should be pro-justice so as to eliminate the cause of so many of them, e.g. the Great Depression was a major cause of WWII and the inherently unjust credit creation system was a major cause of the Great Depression.
Pat has one up
Saw that. Ironic how an old Nixon Cold Warrior who lambasted the anti-war movement as a speech-writer for Nixon-Agnew is now the peacenik, while the "left" is on the warpath.
“Great Depression was a major cause of WWII “
Fed asset purchases dwarfed even the QE1 and 2 we saw in the GFC... all those Reserve assets eventually made the depositories insolvent...
Just had some friends return from the States. They were shocked how divided people were on the streets (polarised) over Trump. It amazes me: - that same mind that long ago figured out how to get fire from a stick .... now a huge great emotional cloud with concepts flying around in it like lightning; and when the storm clears ???? What will be the distribution???
... all those Reserve assets eventually made the depositories insolvent... Franko
Central bank purchases create new fiat and fiat creation should only be done for/by the monetary sovereign and/or perhaps by equal fiat distributions by the cb to all citizens to avoid violating equal protection under the law. So QE violates equal protection under the law. So for that matter does interest on reserves (IOR), loans from the discount window and the purchase of sovereign debt EXCEPT directly from the monetary sovereign.
Ironically, ethical fiat creation should improve the solvency of banks by improving the ability of debtors to pay - especially because of the missing interest problem since not all interest is recycled but leaks into savings.
Well that sounds all swell but here in the real world we have Art Degree morons who think “banks lend out the reserves!” while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories...
FD: I don’t have an Art Degree though...
Well that sounds all swell but here in the real world we have Art Degree morons who think “banks lend out the reserves!” while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories.
Who are the non-art degree people that know this and write about it? Please cite references.
Tom:
https://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/academics/bs-in-economics/
“What’s the difference between a BS in Economics at Wharton and BA major in economics in a liberal arts program? We get this question all the time, and the answer comes down to curriculum and teaching and learning methods.
(Yo: METHODOLOGY....)
TEACHING & LEARNING METHODS
Wharton classes focus on hands-on problem solving, using teaching methods such as case studies, negotiations, group work, and simulations in addition to traditional lectures. Students learn by starting with a problem or concrete example. After fully understanding the problem, they look for solutions and then begin to examine theories to see how they might apply.
In a liberal arts setting, students often learn by starting with a theory or abstract idea. After fully understanding the theory, they then look for problems to understand how the theory applies.“
An Art degree methodology is reverse of a Science degree... the Art method STARTS with the theory FIRST... and THEN looks for a situation to apply it...
Science starts with observation and analysis of a problem and THEN forms a theory in the process of solving the problem... this is how I and all other Science degree people have been ideally trained...
I’ll do a post on this later this week...
Then somebody can cite it ( if they understand it...)
Here: “In a liberal arts setting, students often learn by starting with a theory or abstract idea. After fully understanding the theory, they then look for problems to understand how the theory applies.“
This describes Minsky’s “stability creates instability!” Theory TO.... A.... TEE...
while at the same time regulating bank reserve levels in a fixed ratio against regulatory capital... so a policy increase of reserves quickly leads to insolvency of the depositories. Franko
This what you're talking about, Franko?
The leverage ratio’s core intractable problem is that it treats all bank assets as having the same level of risk, from deposits at the central bank and Treasury securities to leveraged loans, loans to small businesses and credit card loans. from BankThink Setting the record straight on why leverage ratio must change
Looks close but that writer MAY also, AT THE SAME TIME, think “banks lend out the reserves!” so the person perhaps would not see the problem... iow the writer may just be self interested banker who wants to increase roe ...
Matt, I question the degree to which case study method can be called scientific. If you admit it is, they have have to admit a lot of stuff that you consider "art."
I would say that the case study method is an attempt to adapt scientific method to areas in which it doesn't completely apply to extract as much data-based information as possible.
The case study method relies heavily on stochastic methods and simulations, which you don't seem to think is doing science.
I don't think that this gets DJT into the scientific community as you have defined it.
Don’t get wrapped around the wheel with Trump.... there is a larger point about cognitive methodology I am trying to make based on the organization of the academe...
Mike also I believe earned this same degree as Trump at Penn and he gets it.....
Trump has said “I hate to break the news to you but you never go bankrupt because govt just prints the money” which is at least a step away from the debt doomsday theory....
It the stochastic methods are only being used to analyze a theory that has already been established and accepted by the Arts community then yes that is not doing science....
“I question the degree to which case study method can be called scientific.“
Well as long as you don’t teach the theory FIRST, ie BEFORE you assign the case study I could see it as scientific...
Iow science is investigation THEN theory.... art is theory THEN investigation....
Remember when Mike was last on with Stuart Varney on Fox... Varney (Art degree from LSE) says "you print money, youre Weimar Germany!" .. that is his theory he already has it... so then he goes all around looking for where it fits...
Or Milton Freidman "inflation is always a monetary phenomenon..." then we do QE1 and QE2 and increase reserve assets by 13,000% and prices collapse... doesnt matter to Freidman though as he already has his theory established.... so now he just waits until he sees reserves increase and some prices go up (due to OPEC monopoly power) and he says "see! I told you!"...
Or Minsky going all around saying "stability creates instability! stability creates instability!... stability creates instability!....stability creates instability!" like one of those dumb pull string dolls... so he has his theory already established, then he just sits and waits until there is a somewhat stable period followed by some instability (duh) and says "see! I told you!"....
This is the way these people have been trained to think in these Art degree programs... its the reverse of the scientific...
Matt, science courses at the undergrad level are presented at the level of theory. You learned the theory and are asked to solve math problem on the basis of your knowledge of they theory and your math background. Undergrad science course are not heavy on labs and measurement but theory and math, for example, translating word problems into equations and solving them.
"Undergrad science course are not heavy on labs and measurement"
Yes they are... mine was I would say... I had labs, design projects, etc.. I'm watching some go thru it now and can see what they are doing...
Look this is not me saying this I am just referencing Wharton materials here.. they are the leading business school in the country and they make a POINT to teach Economics as a Science degree program and they have the best people out there... very successful and effective people in material business firms...
Their MBA is a Master of SCIENCE in Finance and Accounting... same methods...
You go to one of these Wharton people working in corporate finance and say "hey! your debt is unsustainable!" and they will laugh right in your face because they know they can pay it as the financing was designed that way...
As opposed to all of these Art degree people working in govt policy circles... ie unqualified...
Matt, you are defining what "science" means. That's perspectival. Moreover, you are including in "science" training" what you want and excluding what you don't want. Unconvincing.
Business school is "science" in a similar way to psych and social sciences. It's neither a physical science nor a life science. Microeconomics, even that the undergrad level, has a lot of case study.
All of these "sciences" are heavily stochastic owing to the measurement conditions and inherent fuzziness of the variables in comparison to the "hard sciences." That is what they are called "soft sciences," which you often equate with "arts."
Accounting is not a "science," no matter what the degree is called. Nor is math, even though it is sometimes (incorrectly called a science). Both of these subjects are syntactical, concerned with notation. They are methodological tools that can be used in doing science. although accounting would apply only to business & finance, and social science, in particular economics.
Engineering is applied natural science. Medicine is applied life science.
Business is neither pure science nor applied science in a sense that is anything like engineering or medicine. it sometimes uses uses aspects of science and tools of science. Well, so does contemporary philosophy.
The art and science of Life: -
You’ve done fifty, sixty, a hundred laps around the sun – ‘what do you want’?
Without vision the people perish.
Art is vision. It is also purpose, commitment, passion; experience and direction. It rises up from the heart of man in harmony with Life. It can be felt in all great music, art, literature and philosophy. From creativity, it blossoms into self-knowledge; then knowledge of the Divine. Its seed is in the heart; not the lower mind. Repeat ... not the lower mind (including yours and mine and the ‘I’ that swims in it).
Then mind gathers ideas and knits them into a plan to materialise, express the vision. That’s science. A city is an expression of a vision, albeit a lowly polluted egoistic one. So is a nation. So is humanity’s creativity. Mind, when it knows its proper place, is a grateful servant of the heart. Without the heart, mind tends to chaos (look outside of your window).
The problem with science at the moment (mind as one atom) is they think the universe, despite its infinite extent, is all nuts and bolts over which they have dominion. Ha! All of their advances too, come from creativity. Mind does the legwork
“Bernanke attended Harvard University in 1971[25], where he lived in Winthrop House, as did the future CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, and graduated with an A.B. degree, and later with an A.M. in economics summa cum laude”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke
Art degrees....
Another nonsense without citing the curriculum.
Matt, by your logic all PHD are arts people regardless of the field of study since PHD means "doctor of philosophy."
Silly.
“Accounting is not a "science," no matter what the degree is called. ”
Well Wharton claims it is teaching it via a scientific methodology and calling it therefore a Science Degree at award....
Whether it is on someone’s subjective list of “sciences” is immaterial to this discussion.... this discussion is about details of the methodology of the training/education...
What I am claiming is that you are inconsistent with the use of terms, using them as it suits you rather than consistently.
Define what you mean by science and not-science and "arts" and not-arts in terms of set boundaries, and whether they are complement in such as way that there is no middle, as you seem to assume.
Then maybe we can get onto solid ground.
Now this conversation is going around in a circle. I've addressed these issues already and you just continue to repeat your POV without acknowledging the issues raised.
Either you are open to debate or else are set on maintaining a rigid position based on a set of assumptions that is in dispute. The latter is were inquiry ends and it is useless to pursue it further.
@ Tom Hickey, has it not yet occurred to you that Franko totes lost his mind a while back?
Tom you have formed a theory already in you mind (what is or isn’t a “science”) before you’ve examined the data...
You are confusing a DISCIPLINE with a METHODOLOGY...
Ever hear of the “scientific method “?
All Disciplines can be taught via scientific method and the degree is awarded as a science degree.... the student is then trained to approach any analysis scientifically...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
but that writer MAY also, AT THE SAME TIME, think “banks lend out the reserves!” Franko
The reason banks can't lend out reserves, except perhaps vault cash, is the non-bank private sector may not have accounts of their own at the Central Bank to receive them!
Matt, that Wikipedia article, while correct as a quick summary, involves a many controversial points.
It is based on physics as the paradigm of scientific method, and this has resulted in a lot of issues among those that argue about these questions professionally.
From this POV almost nothing but physics and and chemistry are real sciences.
Many people have argue that this paradigm of science is to narrow to fit the conception of science that most people have, which is much looser and would include subjects that don't fit this narrow paradigm.
Although the life sciences, psychology and social sciences don't fit this paradigm, many people regard them as being scientific to the degree that scientific procedure is applied in them, albeit much more loosely than physics and chemistry, owing to the nature of the subject matter.
In fact, there is a vast literature on the arguing for many positions from strict positivism to anarchism.
Putting forth one POV as self-evident is naive and citing selectively is not arguing in the framework of iniquity based on debate where answering objections is required.
To summarize, you are unqualified for this debate. I would suggest you take time to prepare properly, or give it up.
Tom you have formed a theory already in you mind (what is or isn’t a “science”) before you’ve examined the data...
You are confusing a DISCIPLINE with a METHODOLOGY...
Ever hear of the “scientific method “?
Matt, do you read my comments in full. This is the point I have been making.
"Science" really means "the sciences" which is a set with multiple members. The sciences are different disciplines in the set of set "science" which is not a discipline but a category.
The question is about the members of the set, to distinguish "science" as a set of disciplines from non-science.
Scientific method is not a discipline it is a method. Scientific method is void of content. is a tool for dealing with content, which is the subject matter of different disciplines.
One criterion of "science" as a set of disciplines is that the disciplines that fall under the category use scientific method.
There are different POVs on how to interpret this.
Some include only the natural sciences where formal theory based on deterministic equations that generates hypotheses testable by controlled experiments is "real science," and all the other sciences are merely analogs that resembles science but are not really doing science but a mixture of science and other things like speculation. Einstein was even willing to rule out quantum mechanics on this basis and he never came to accept that real science could be anything but deterministic.
Most physicists thought that conception of science was to tight, but a lot of them are skeptical about anything but natural science being real science.
Others hold that just using scientific method as fits the limitations of the disciple is sufficient to categorize the discipline as science, but there is wide disagreement about what fits, some arguing for a looser interpretation than others.
On the loose end of the range is Paul Feyerabend and his anarchistic POV, which asserted that trying to bound science limits its creativity and people should just STFU and let serious people cary on with their reproach without bothering them or trying to tether them with nonsense. I tend to agree with Feyerabend's position, but it is a minority view.
The widespread view is that formalization and quantification exemplify "science," and measurement and observation, including by instruments, must be available for testability, in addition. This is a relaxation of the strict positivist view, but it is tight enough to distinguish science as empirically-based inquiry from inquiry that is not empirically based.
But this is a heuristic that is not written in stone and from the POV of professionals in this field, it would have to specified more precisely, which leads back to the controversies.
So there is the ordinary language use of the term "science," and the technical debate over the correct use of terms based on application of logic, which is a discipline that studies method in a way that is similar to math. Some hold that math is a branch of logic rather than a separate discipline independent of logic as the discipline that deals with notations.
Post a Comment