thankyou so much for this video. i don't know how many times i've heard 'your economics doesn't follow the scientific method'.
damn i hate ignorant, but subborn dicks. especially from the zeitgeist corner.
they act as if there philosophy (of which, consists of no actual texts - only movies. lol) is the only philosophy out there. and all others are old or misguided.
then again, 90% are still in highschool, and looking for something unique to attach themselves to. (idiots)
I think it's an interesting discussion and certainly much better than most videos about "scientism" I have seen on YT. But I do cringe if science is presented as a category, rather than as a variable and changing set of methods. "Natural" and "social" science do overlap when one looks at them through the methodological lens. Experimentation and theory formation are not at all that dissimilar. But one can in variable ways try to demarcate based on claims and attributes (Hakey, Popper etc).
@socrates856 Yes, exactly. What really defines the unification of all sciences is that their methods hinge on a basic principle. Popper claims it's falsification, others think it's something else like what is found in regularity theory.
@ladyattis you should see the TTC (teaching company) torrent. google 'torrent ttc philosophy of science'
anyway it is a bunch of lectures that deals with trying to figure out what is philosophy, what is science. where they overlap etc. very very useful. in fact everything from TTC is amazing. they have 40+gigabyte of lectures.
anyway, i found this v-post excellent. i shall pass it to those who need it - specifically the zeitgeist followers. Thank you.
@socrates856 Re: "Natural" and "social" science do overlap. Yes this is true. They overlap to the effect that what is natural, particularly in regards to movements on earth's surface, e.g. human economic activity, are movements governed by the Lewis inequality for natural processes (dG < 0) (Edward Guggenheim, 1933). The majority of social scientists, in contrast to physical scientists, have not yet received this memo, thus leaving social science in a state of guess work.
Great contribution! I find myself forever trouncing dolts who insist Austrian economists admit it has no connection to the real world because they (we) reject empiricism when, as Hayek notes in "The Fatal Conceit", we reject empiricism as the SOURCE of knowledge and constantly test our theories (which match reality much better than alternatives). Also, VPer's grant the scientific method magical productive powers (like capitalism) rather than getting that its a way of understanding the world.
Exactly! I think it's more humorous/pathetic when people attempt to undermine human action or state aprori deduction is "primitive'. it just gives proof that most people who criticize literally don't understand our positoin or won't set their bias aside to properly understand oru position.
Anyone noticing that YT's commenting system ASSumes every comment that quotes another comment is spam? I swear the code monkeys must be getting too lazy and using regex instead of genuine heuristics to figure out what's spam and what's not. X_X
@ladyattis They just recently made the problem even worse. You can't even respond to a comment that is marked as spam. (You used to be able to.) Now you have to respond to your own comment and hope the person you are conversing with is paying attention. sigh
@justintempler Yeah, they're being lazy asses by ass-uming anything that repeats must be spam. Yet people still can game the tags and descriptions to float their videos to the top (LOL WUT).
@voiceofreason467 You mean chaos theory. Yes, that can be used in modeling real world phenomena, but it's not the same as you might suppose. The behavior of the models does not map back in terms of the deviation the phenomena takes versus the model (meaning, no foundational changes are made to chaos theory just because weather patterns change in respect to strange attractors).
@voiceofreason467 Um, no, Computer Engineering is dealing with circuitry/hardware. Now, I know how to do a k-map and I know the basics of logic gates, but the fact is CS is not CE. They're different disciplines.
Give an Austrian, a Keynesian, a Marxist and an Institutionalist the same case study, and they'll each interpret the same data within the framework of their own theory, and arrive at radically different and incompatible conclusions. No matter how much data you pile on, you will be no closer to determining whose method of analysis is correct.
But approach their theories as a set of axioms and logical deductions, and you'll be able to disprove three of them within fifteen minutes.
I guess you didn't read the bit at the end...what's in the parentheses. All well, I have time that can be better spent. And I'm willing to forgive the stupidity of some of your contentions over at stickam. I know how in love with yourself you are, and well...you probably just got carried away in the heat of the moment. I am not a troll, ladyattis can testify to that, I just get annoyed with the narcissists running around these parts. Ta ta.
Yeah, I guess you're right....I'm just randomly making shit up for no reason at all. I recant; I did not hear you with my own ears in stickam make the very aforementioned claim. I must have been hallucinating. Apologies.
I've thoroughly enjoyed this batch of videos of yours on the subject. I like defending the value of science but I find it hard to swallow that some of those who are framed as champions of science seem to understand so little about it. It puts me in the peculiar position of defending science by attacking scientists; All the more so if they enjoy mixing science with politics. Perhaps that's only natural.
I like ad homs....you do read philosophic texts, no? Nietzsche insulted individuals all the time. Luther and Erasmus repeatedly insulted one another in the midst of their debate on free will. Schopenhauer berated and insulted Hegel frequently, and Jesus H Christ, the things Voltaire said about both Rousseau and Leibniz! Marx and Engels unrelentingly mocked and textually abused Max Stirner. (please note, insults do not equate to a logical fallacy).
This clown once tried to claim that I had things "ass backwards" as regards epistemic justification and truth; his claim being that, as against justification, truth precedes justification and beliefs are justified relative to it, which is fucking retarded as there would be no epistemology if such were the case. Truth is a goal to be attained, not a presupposition by which justification can be established relative to it.
My friend ladyattis, voiceofreason (more accurately: the voice of a struggling autodidact who is utterly in love with the sound of his own voice; trust me brotha, I've listened to this asshat ramble on over at stickam...it's intolerable to listen to) will drive you insane with the most horrid combination of condescension and lack of education. This is a frequent phenomenon here on youtube, which is why I increasingly despise this place :(
@voiceofreason467 You seem to not parse your words finely enough, friend. You said something about working backwards from one's model. So, I'm assuming you think math is about mapping reality in a constructiveness manner. The issue is that math has little to do with the natural world, so there's no models in math. There's just proofs, lemmas, corollaries, categories, and so on, but no models. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to be *EXACT* in my words.
@ladyattis Which means you need to follow through by understanding my meaning. If you don't, then I invite you to download some freely available textbooks on mathematics. I think MIT has some under their OpenCourseware site.
@voiceofreason467 Engineering != Science. No, we don't use engineering in CompSci. CompSci is not an engineering practice. Computer Engineering is a totally different discipline.
@voiceofreason467 And what are the tools of mathematicians and computer scientists? Lemme give you a hint: it's not samples and surveys, nor labs and linear accelerators. Same with economists and certain social scientists. :D
Btw, previously I wasn't being condescending. Right now, I'm being condescending.
@voiceofreason467 Um, you're strawmanning, dude. First, a proof works from the conditions that its set upon. Second, you must satisfy those conditions to validate the proof. This is known as proof by construction. You can work backwards by assuming the proof is not true and this would be proof by contradiction. And so on. The fact you don't seem to show a basic grasp of proofs means you really *need* to sit in a college level abstract algebra course. Or even a Discrete Mathematics course.
@voiceofreason467 Thought experiments follow as a great test of the validity of a hypothesis in that within a scope of known facts regarding a phenomena, one can work forward as to the possible results that would be needed to satisfy the hypothesis. In simpler terms, it lets you frame the case for real world experimentation. As for Ayn Rand: great writer, poor thinker.
@voiceofreason467 They're not natural in the sense that one can form proofs in mathematics or logical science without need of statistical data. You can *apply* mathematics to a real world setting, but the real world setting may not be said to apply backwards to mathematics itself.
to repeat Feynman: If you're not doing the experiments, it isn't science.
Scientism is adopting the trappings of the real thing, degrees, lab smocks,
numerical tools, and using statistics to lie to people about the way they have cooked the books. Conflation with technology also gets in the way of understanding. The real thing has carefully defined limits, because it is
supposed to be forming a body of reliable facts. Outside those is archaic BS
@tyrbolo Oh, you can have experiments in economics, but they're not entirely empirical or dependent on doing samples. I think Thought Experiments are a great example of non-empirical experimentation.
@tyrbolo anyways, I'm getting tired of people assuming the accumulation of statistical data equals experimentation or that theorizing without any measure of facts is scientific.
Do realize that the term "rational" have been used at various times, by various economists, to suggest some very different things.
If you mean the Classical or the related Chicago school and Neoclassical notions of rationality, where humans are supposed to be one sort of being or the other with more or less perfect foreknowledge, then yes, failure.
If you mean something like the Austrian, merely pleionastic sense, then I would be inclined to disagree.
thankyou so much for this video. i don't know how many times i've heard 'your economics doesn't follow the scientific method'.
damn i hate ignorant, but subborn dicks. especially from the zeitgeist corner.
they act as if there philosophy (of which, consists of no actual texts - only movies. lol) is the only philosophy out there. and all others are old or misguided.
then again, 90% are still in highschool, and looking for something unique to attach themselves to. (idiots)
TrollForTuna 11 months ago
I think it's an interesting discussion and certainly much better than most videos about "scientism" I have seen on YT. But I do cringe if science is presented as a category, rather than as a variable and changing set of methods. "Natural" and "social" science do overlap when one looks at them through the methodological lens. Experimentation and theory formation are not at all that dissimilar. But one can in variable ways try to demarcate based on claims and attributes (Hakey, Popper etc).
socrates856 1 year ago
@socrates856 Yes, exactly. What really defines the unification of all sciences is that their methods hinge on a basic principle. Popper claims it's falsification, others think it's something else like what is found in regularity theory.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis you should see the TTC (teaching company) torrent. google 'torrent ttc philosophy of science'
anyway it is a bunch of lectures that deals with trying to figure out what is philosophy, what is science. where they overlap etc. very very useful. in fact everything from TTC is amazing. they have 40+gigabyte of lectures.
anyway, i found this v-post excellent. i shall pass it to those who need it - specifically the zeitgeist followers. Thank you.
TrollForTuna 11 months ago
@socrates856 Re: "Natural" and "social" science do overlap. Yes this is true. They overlap to the effect that what is natural, particularly in regards to movements on earth's surface, e.g. human economic activity, are movements governed by the Lewis inequality for natural processes (dG < 0) (Edward Guggenheim, 1933). The majority of social scientists, in contrast to physical scientists, have not yet received this memo, thus leaving social science in a state of guess work.
HumanChemistry101 10 months ago
The VP supporters (and its orchestrators) don't know natural science.
watch?v=UTZlNM-1QNM
Guncriminal 1 year ago
Great contribution! I find myself forever trouncing dolts who insist Austrian economists admit it has no connection to the real world because they (we) reject empiricism when, as Hayek notes in "The Fatal Conceit", we reject empiricism as the SOURCE of knowledge and constantly test our theories (which match reality much better than alternatives). Also, VPer's grant the scientific method magical productive powers (like capitalism) rather than getting that its a way of understanding the world.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
Exactly! I think it's more humorous/pathetic when people attempt to undermine human action or state aprori deduction is "primitive'. it just gives proof that most people who criticize literally don't understand our positoin or won't set their bias aside to properly understand oru position.
fwanksajerk 1 year ago
@fwanksajerk
wow it's like I have dyslexia.
fwanksajerk 1 year ago
Anyone noticing that YT's commenting system ASSumes every comment that quotes another comment is spam? I swear the code monkeys must be getting too lazy and using regex instead of genuine heuristics to figure out what's spam and what's not. X_X
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis
You noticed that too, huh?
Glad I'm not the only one.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@ladyattis They just recently made the problem even worse. You can't even respond to a comment that is marked as spam. (You used to be able to.) Now you have to respond to your own comment and hope the person you are conversing with is paying attention. sigh
justintempler 1 year ago
@justintempler Yeah, they're being lazy asses by ass-uming anything that repeats must be spam. Yet people still can game the tags and descriptions to float their videos to the top (LOL WUT).
ladyattis 1 year ago
I am ashamed of my lack of knowledge in regards to physical and computer science. thanks for those definitions.
damn public schools; i would never brag about my knowledge of social science either...
redrajani 1 year ago
good video
wizkid2000 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 You mean chaos theory. Yes, that can be used in modeling real world phenomena, but it's not the same as you might suppose. The behavior of the models does not map back in terms of the deviation the phenomena takes versus the model (meaning, no foundational changes are made to chaos theory just because weather patterns change in respect to strange attractors).
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Um, no, Computer Engineering is dealing with circuitry/hardware. Now, I know how to do a k-map and I know the basics of logic gates, but the fact is CS is not CE. They're different disciplines.
ladyattis 1 year ago
Give an Austrian, a Keynesian, a Marxist and an Institutionalist the same case study, and they'll each interpret the same data within the framework of their own theory, and arrive at radically different and incompatible conclusions. No matter how much data you pile on, you will be no closer to determining whose method of analysis is correct.
But approach their theories as a set of axioms and logical deductions, and you'll be able to disprove three of them within fifteen minutes.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
Check out my video on methodology
/watch?v=ZfliSH-0FcU
It is important to emphasize the problem of isolability and the problem of quantitative regularity in economic phenomena
AarontheCurious 1 year ago
@AarontheCurious Yeah, I accepted the video, but for some reason it's not showing up on the video page. WTH is wrong with YT? O_O
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis Yeah, idk how that even happened. I've never even been to the youtube video that my video ended up as a response to...
AarontheCurious 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467
I guess you didn't read the bit at the end...what's in the parentheses. All well, I have time that can be better spent. And I'm willing to forgive the stupidity of some of your contentions over at stickam. I know how in love with yourself you are, and well...you probably just got carried away in the heat of the moment. I am not a troll, ladyattis can testify to that, I just get annoyed with the narcissists running around these parts. Ta ta.
GalileanGuy 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467
Yeah, I guess you're right....I'm just randomly making shit up for no reason at all. I recant; I did not hear you with my own ears in stickam make the very aforementioned claim. I must have been hallucinating. Apologies.
GalileanGuy 1 year ago
I've thoroughly enjoyed this batch of videos of yours on the subject. I like defending the value of science but I find it hard to swallow that some of those who are framed as champions of science seem to understand so little about it. It puts me in the peculiar position of defending science by attacking scientists; All the more so if they enjoy mixing science with politics. Perhaps that's only natural.
UnhappyTestTubeBaby 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467
I like ad homs....you do read philosophic texts, no? Nietzsche insulted individuals all the time. Luther and Erasmus repeatedly insulted one another in the midst of their debate on free will. Schopenhauer berated and insulted Hegel frequently, and Jesus H Christ, the things Voltaire said about both Rousseau and Leibniz! Marx and Engels unrelentingly mocked and textually abused Max Stirner. (please note, insults do not equate to a logical fallacy).
GalileanGuy 1 year ago
This clown once tried to claim that I had things "ass backwards" as regards epistemic justification and truth; his claim being that, as against justification, truth precedes justification and beliefs are justified relative to it, which is fucking retarded as there would be no epistemology if such were the case. Truth is a goal to be attained, not a presupposition by which justification can be established relative to it.
GalileanGuy 1 year ago
My friend ladyattis, voiceofreason (more accurately: the voice of a struggling autodidact who is utterly in love with the sound of his own voice; trust me brotha, I've listened to this asshat ramble on over at stickam...it's intolerable to listen to) will drive you insane with the most horrid combination of condescension and lack of education. This is a frequent phenomenon here on youtube, which is why I increasingly despise this place :(
GalileanGuy 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 You seem to not parse your words finely enough, friend. You said something about working backwards from one's model. So, I'm assuming you think math is about mapping reality in a constructiveness manner. The issue is that math has little to do with the natural world, so there's no models in math. There's just proofs, lemmas, corollaries, categories, and so on, but no models. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to be *EXACT* in my words.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis Which means you need to follow through by understanding my meaning. If you don't, then I invite you to download some freely available textbooks on mathematics. I think MIT has some under their OpenCourseware site.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Engineering != Science. No, we don't use engineering in CompSci. CompSci is not an engineering practice. Computer Engineering is a totally different discipline.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 I hate to tell you, but math isn't about models. :(
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 The fact I decided to watch one of your videos shows you have committed quite a bit of confirmation bias on your own. :D
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 And what are the tools of mathematicians and computer scientists? Lemme give you a hint: it's not samples and surveys, nor labs and linear accelerators. Same with economists and certain social scientists. :D
Btw, previously I wasn't being condescending. Right now, I'm being condescending.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Everyone has bias, just that some are more aware of it than not. *hint hint*
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Um, you're strawmanning, dude. First, a proof works from the conditions that its set upon. Second, you must satisfy those conditions to validate the proof. This is known as proof by construction. You can work backwards by assuming the proof is not true and this would be proof by contradiction. And so on. The fact you don't seem to show a basic grasp of proofs means you really *need* to sit in a college level abstract algebra course. Or even a Discrete Mathematics course.
ladyattis 1 year ago
Hayek coined the term scientism? OMFG he's even more awesome then I thought!
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 Thought experiments follow as a great test of the validity of a hypothesis in that within a scope of known facts regarding a phenomena, one can work forward as to the possible results that would be needed to satisfy the hypothesis. In simpler terms, it lets you frame the case for real world experimentation. As for Ayn Rand: great writer, poor thinker.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@voiceofreason467 They're not natural in the sense that one can form proofs in mathematics or logical science without need of statistical data. You can *apply* mathematics to a real world setting, but the real world setting may not be said to apply backwards to mathematics itself.
ladyattis 1 year ago
LOL Unnatural science strikes.
to repeat Feynman: If you're not doing the experiments, it isn't science.
Scientism is adopting the trappings of the real thing, degrees, lab smocks,
numerical tools, and using statistics to lie to people about the way they have cooked the books. Conflation with technology also gets in the way of understanding. The real thing has carefully defined limits, because it is
supposed to be forming a body of reliable facts. Outside those is archaic BS
in modern dress
tyrbolo 1 year ago
@tyrbolo Oh, you can have experiments in economics, but they're not entirely empirical or dependent on doing samples. I think Thought Experiments are a great example of non-empirical experimentation.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@tyrbolo anyways, I'm getting tired of people assuming the accumulation of statistical data equals experimentation or that theorizing without any measure of facts is scientific.
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis I happen to agree with Pareto, in that any economic theory based on assuming rational human
behavior starts as a failure which gets worse with elaborations.
We are the lab rats in the economic experiments of the economists, but their methods are testing to
destruction and then wondering what happened as they survey the wreckage....GRIN
tyrbolo 1 year ago
@tyrbolo
Do realize that the term "rational" have been used at various times, by various economists, to suggest some very different things.
If you mean the Classical or the related Chicago school and Neoclassical notions of rationality, where humans are supposed to be one sort of being or the other with more or less perfect foreknowledge, then yes, failure.
If you mean something like the Austrian, merely pleionastic sense, then I would be inclined to disagree.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago