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.
“ We have trusting scientists going along with rational agent descriptions put out there by economists when these rational agent descriptions have little to no empirical evidence in their favor — and even fewer accurate descriptions of a genuine state of affairs. In fact, economics might do well to borrow the evolutionary idea of an ecosystem being the emergent result of agents randomly exploring the state space.”
Yeah Economics discipline and Biology discipline both pretty screwed up... both devoid of purpose and creativity...
"these rational agent descriptions have little to no empirical evidence in their favor"
Textbook Liberal Art methodology 101.... Theory comes FIRST... then only data supporting the Theory is identified... conflicting data is discarded... rinse and repeat..
Earlier this week, Tom, you posted an article by Yannis Palaiologos interviewing Amartya Sen. You know... every time I hear or come across the name Palaiologos, I can't help but think of the last ruling Roman dynasty of the Roman Empire and, with great sadness, the fall of the Eternal City of Constantinople, founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (272–337), Constantine's City. The City fell to the Mongols on 29 May 1453, the darkest day in Roman history.
First, biology noted ( by drawing first) every living thing it saw, the it classified them. Every plant and animal on the planet was looked at, drawn, measured, studied in it’s habitat, dissected, compared and then finally classified. You know that kingdom phylum class order family genus specie thing? That was by Linnaeus in 1758! 250 years ago ! And it has been revised very little. All the technologies since then, cameras, microscopes and computers have only built on that, NOT overturned it. Physics math and chemistry have been completely revised in that time
The question of purpose has not been avoided at all. You just think the answer is the simple very first one from 5000 yrs ago ...... GOD DID IT ! What are the chances that the first answer is the right one considering the first answer in every other subject has been debunked? ZERO
You want to reduce biology to origin of life questions, which are interesting but not overwhelmingly important. The answer to how and when will never be answered unequivocally. Most biologists dont spend a great deal of time on that because it is such a politically charged arena. The rest of biology is the MOST rock solid area of study we have. The mechanism by which life has progressed, after that first moment which everyone seems to be the most charged up about, is result of THE most rock solid science on the planet. Bar none.
What is appearing "rock solid" perhaps is the discipline of 'Biochemistry'.... which is a specialized form of Chemistry... probably exclusively taught via B.S. methodology...
You denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity' with all of that Darwin shit... "we are TRYING TO FIND A CURE!" etc lol ... walking all around looking down at the sidewalk hoping you will happen upon something?
Then you complain that we are not proceeding with "public purpose"...
No I’m not making your point. The point is that Biology began with an enormous data set which was well documented and can’t be denied. Looking at nature and documenting it, asking questions like how did this become this way were the first fundamental questions asked. Those answers have been revised but the original data set was not. The physical characteristics of different phenotypes have been unrevised for years because they are obvious. The first answers to the why questions were wrong and have been revised but the reason the current answers are so rock solid is you can look at each creature and demonstrate exactly how they all fit together. The physical evidence is overwhelming. Especially as we’ve learned more about biochemistry and genetics. —————————
You denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity' with all of that Darwin shit... "we are TRYING TO FIND A CURE!" etc lol ... walking all around looking down at the sidewalk hoping you will happen upon something?
What in the hell are you even talking about? Denigrating purpose and creativity?
————————————-
How Mycobacterium tuberculosis sulfolipid-1 activates nociceptive neurons and induces cough." That not a scientific statement.. its a teleology or anthropormorphism or something.. There are functional chemical equations to better describe what is really going on
Oh really? Getting down to describing the chemical composition of the receptor and then drawing out the P chem equations which might be happening as these compounds are interacting is the only thing that counts as scientific? You think the only way to fully understand something is to break it down to the micro level mathematics, which of course goes down to quantum mechanics which is all probabilities and not certainties. To say it is better described is a value judgement. I think it’s actually better described using terms and concepts understood by more people not just using theoretical math that might describe what individual electrons are doing when they form some compound. Notice the word might.
You totally miss why physics and chemistry have been revised as opposed to biology. Biology was looking at the macro, organism, level while physics and chemistry were looking deeper. We needed more tools to expand those fields. But they are no more scientific than Biology. Biology was just looking at different level. What is interesting is that the answers given by.........DARWIN..... that all life is interconnected, has a link at a much deeper level that explains the interconnection has only been supported by biochemistry and genetics. The same chemical building blocks are in all life and we know how those building blocks were built. We’ve seen the blueprint. ( it looks like a double helix)
You denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity'
Ok that’ explains Trump being creative and suggests disinfection and light into the lounge. Great stuff. No denigration of creativity and purpose there.
No , you don’t know HOW it was built... yes you know the current configuration... the blueprint as you say.. the diagram... no argument there...
You are skipping over the creative process.. which is the “how”...
This Gain of Function stuff (which is recent) seems to be finally bringing in some creativity into it...
I’ve heard recently that in the current Discipline of Biochemistry that 1/3 of members reject Darwin... this gives me some hope at least they may start to finally come up with some stuff...
"As of 2018, the highest transistor count in a graphics processing unit (GPU) is Nvidia's GV100 Volta with 21.1 billion MOSFETs, manufactured using TSMC's 12 nm FinFET process."
they know what these transistors are doing...
21 billion transistors... I dont think these people waste a lot of time thinking about where Silicon came from... where did GalliumArsenide come from...
Oh, so since 1/3 of biochemists reject Darwin (whatever the hell that means) and thus agree with you, that makes them right? Good to know Matt. Now I see your “scientific” method.
Give me a 400 word essay on what it is you find wrong about Darwin. Tell me exactly what it is you disagree with. I don’t think you can do it cuz you don’t understand it. You probably think ..... “ Darwin says we came from apes...... why are there still apes then? Huh?”
Interesting thing about Darwin’s theory, No one would have had any problem with it if he would have just left man out of it. No one had any problem believing all that other stuff about the rest of the biological world. It was only because he included man with the rest of “lower” animals that the scholars got all up in arms. They could not fathom we weren’t special in some way. Darwin actually had a problem with that too but his inner scientist told him it was likely true.
“ We have trusting scientists going along with rational agent descriptions put out there by economists when these rational agent descriptions have little to no empirical evidence in their favor — and even fewer accurate descriptions of a genuine state of affairs. In fact, economics might do well to borrow the evolutionary idea of an ecosystem being the emergent result of agents randomly exploring the state space.”
ReplyDeleteYeah Economics discipline and Biology discipline both pretty screwed up... both devoid of purpose and creativity...
:-)
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/06/what-darwin-got-wrong
"these rational agent descriptions have little to no empirical evidence in their favor"
ReplyDeleteTextbook Liberal Art methodology 101.... Theory comes FIRST... then only data supporting the Theory is identified... conflicting data is discarded... rinse and repeat..
Its a moron factory...
[off topic -- sorry but I can't help it :(]
ReplyDeleteEarlier this week, Tom, you posted an article by Yannis Palaiologos interviewing Amartya Sen. You know... every time I hear or come across the name Palaiologos, I can't help but think of the last ruling Roman dynasty of the Roman Empire and, with great sadness, the fall of the Eternal City of Constantinople, founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (272–337), Constantine's City. The City fell to the Mongols on 29 May 1453, the darkest day in Roman history.
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/05/29/may-29-1453-the-day-constantinople-fell/
PS: If I had to choose a surname other than the one I have now, without hesitation I'd choose the glorious name of Palaiologos.
I don’t think you understand Biology AT ALL!
ReplyDeleteFirst, biology noted ( by drawing first) every living thing it saw, the it classified them. Every plant and animal on the planet was looked at, drawn, measured, studied in it’s habitat, dissected, compared and then finally classified. You know that kingdom phylum class order family genus specie thing? That was by Linnaeus in 1758! 250 years ago ! And it has been revised very little. All the technologies since then, cameras, microscopes and computers have only built on that, NOT overturned it. Physics math and chemistry have been completely revised in that time
The question of purpose has not been avoided at all. You just think the answer is the simple very first one from 5000 yrs ago ...... GOD DID IT ! What are the chances that the first answer is the right one considering the first answer in every other subject has been debunked? ZERO
You want to reduce biology to origin of life questions, which are interesting but not overwhelmingly important. The answer to how and when will never be answered unequivocally. Most biologists dont spend a great deal of time on that because it is such a politically charged arena.
The rest of biology is the MOST rock solid area of study we have. The mechanism by which life has progressed, after that first moment which everyone seems to be the most charged up about, is result of THE most rock solid science on the planet. Bar none.
What the hell -- I might as well introduce another of my favourite free podcasts since Greg brought up biology :)
ReplyDeleteThis Week in Microbioloy
https://www.microbe.tv/twim/
Last episode: It starts with a cough: How Mycobacterium tuberculosis sulfolipid-1 activates nociceptive neurons and induces cough.
" Physics math and chemistry have been completely revised in that time"
ReplyDeleteYou are making my point...
"You just think the answer is the simple very first one from 5000 yrs ago ...... GOD DID IT !"
ReplyDeleteWhere have I ever said that? I have never said that...
What is appearing "rock solid" perhaps is the discipline of 'Biochemistry'.... which is a specialized form of Chemistry... probably exclusively taught via B.S. methodology...
ReplyDeleteYou denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity' with all of that Darwin shit... "we are TRYING TO FIND A CURE!" etc lol ... walking all around looking down at the sidewalk hoping you will happen upon something?
Then you complain that we are not proceeding with "public purpose"...
"How Mycobacterium tuberculosis sulfolipid-1 activates nociceptive neurons and induces cough."
ReplyDeleteThat not a scientific statement.. its a teleology or anthropormorphism or something..
There are functional chemical equations to better describe what is really going on...
"That not a scientific statement."
ReplyDeleteIs this ebonics, Matt? ;)
Yo bruh doze words be trippin....
ReplyDeleteNo I’m not making your point. The point is that Biology began with an enormous data set which was well documented and can’t be denied. Looking at nature and documenting it, asking questions like how did this become this way were the first fundamental questions asked. Those answers have been revised but the original data set was not. The physical characteristics of different phenotypes have been unrevised for years because they are obvious. The first answers to the why questions were wrong and have been revised but the reason the current answers are so rock solid is you can look at each creature and demonstrate exactly how they all fit together. The physical evidence is overwhelming. Especially as we’ve learned more about biochemistry and genetics.
ReplyDelete—————————
You denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity' with all of that Darwin shit... "we are TRYING TO FIND A CURE!" etc lol ... walking all around looking down at the sidewalk hoping you will happen upon something?
What in the hell are you even talking about? Denigrating purpose and creativity?
————————————-
How Mycobacterium tuberculosis sulfolipid-1 activates nociceptive neurons and induces cough."
That not a scientific statement.. its a teleology or anthropormorphism or something..
There are functional chemical equations to better describe what is really going on
Oh really? Getting down to describing the chemical composition of the receptor and then drawing out the P chem equations which might be happening as these compounds are interacting is the only thing that counts as scientific? You think the only way to fully understand something is to break it down to the micro level mathematics, which of course goes down to quantum mechanics which is all probabilities and not certainties.
To say it is better described is a value judgement. I think it’s actually better described using terms and concepts understood by more people not just using theoretical math that might describe what individual electrons are doing when they form some compound. Notice the word might.
You totally miss why physics and chemistry have been revised as opposed to biology. Biology was looking at the macro, organism, level while physics and chemistry were looking deeper. We needed more tools to expand those fields. But they are no more scientific than Biology.
ReplyDeleteBiology was just looking at different level. What is interesting is that the answers given by.........DARWIN..... that all life is interconnected, has a link at a much deeper level that explains the interconnection has only been supported by biochemistry and genetics. The same chemical building blocks are in all life and we know how those building blocks were built. We’ve seen the blueprint. ( it looks like a double helix)
You denigrate the concepts of 'purpose' and 'creativity'
ReplyDeleteOk that’ explains Trump being creative and suggests disinfection and light into the lounge. Great stuff. No denigration of creativity and purpose there.
“ we know how those building blocks were built. ”
ReplyDeleteNo , you don’t know HOW it was built... yes you know the current configuration... the blueprint as you say.. the diagram... no argument there...
You are skipping over the creative process.. which is the “how”...
This Gain of Function stuff (which is recent) seems to be finally bringing in some creativity into it...
I’ve heard recently that in the current Discipline of Biochemistry that 1/3 of members reject Darwin... this gives me some hope at least they may start to finally come up with some stuff...
Biology/Biochemistry sounds alot further along than Economics... if they have 1/3 there ...
ReplyDeleteAs far as finally shit-canning the Liberal Art method and transitioning fully to Science methodology...
No way Economics has 1/3 that have given up on the Liberal Art method... not even 1/10 I'd say..
It may go Biology first then Economics...
here:
ReplyDelete"As of 2018, the highest transistor count in a graphics processing unit (GPU) is Nvidia's GV100 Volta with 21.1 billion MOSFETs, manufactured using TSMC's 12 nm FinFET process."
they know what these transistors are doing...
21 billion transistors... I dont think these people waste a lot of time thinking about where Silicon came from... where did GalliumArsenide come from...
Oh, so since 1/3 of biochemists reject Darwin (whatever the hell that means) and thus agree with you, that makes them right? Good to know Matt. Now I see your “scientific” method.
ReplyDeleteGive me a 400 word essay on what it is you find wrong about Darwin. Tell me exactly what it is you disagree with. I don’t think you can do it cuz you don’t understand it. You probably think ..... “ Darwin says we came from apes...... why are there still apes then? Huh?”
I’ve seen that before Marian, nothing there
ReplyDeleteInteresting thing about Darwin’s theory, No one would have had any problem with it if he would have just left man out of it. No one had any problem believing all that other stuff about the rest of the biological world. It was only because he included man with the rest of “lower” animals that the scholars got all up in arms. They could not fathom we weren’t special in some way. Darwin actually had a problem with that too but his inner scientist told him it was likely true.