Why do historians feel qualified to comment on economics? Why

>>2127596
Do they?
I guess certain historians might feel qualified to talk about economics in the context of history.
I think you're just making shit up tho, and I don't think you could find anyone who cares if you searched for a million years.

>>2127610
Lots of historians talk about the causes (as they imagine them) of the Great Depression, or about whether the New Deal was a success, and so on.

Aint it more physicians that go into humanities with their bullshit.
Humanities is much broader than STEM.
To research stem you need specialization in a field, humanities is more of theory and assuming, its not "written on stone" , what if 6 was 9?
>humanities 6=9
>stem 6+9=15

Because economics is a pseudoscience and game theory is garbage as an explanation of how actual people act.

>>2127629
6 could be 9 depending on what axioms you pick

Stupid humanities major assuming things about STEM again

>>2127623
>lots of historians talk about stuff that already happened and try to define it's impact on the world we live in today
that's their job.

>>2127596
Because there are people willing to pay them money for their opinion because they seek validation and "enlightenment" from an "expert."

>>2127650
They are supposed to figure out what happened, not interpret it. They lack the mental faculties for that and should leave it to the statisticians.

>>2127668
>They are supposed to figure out what happened, not interpret it.
>not interpret it

Cherrypicking: The Thread

>>2127668
um, no. Interpreting the facts is exactly what they are suppose to do.

File: 132315942979.png (133KB, 1432x890px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1432x890px

Has history contributed anything to mankind yet?

t. /sci/

>>2128213
You know the history of science stuff you see at the beginning of your textbooks? that's because some historian compiled information into an easily digestible form

>>2128213
Have be contributed anything? It depends on the subject. From Hisotry we learn about from our mistake or able to determine how we got from point A to B and how we can continue on. It really depends on a specific question. Like if you apply it to the space race. Nope, not at all.

>>2127668
>Historians shouldn't interpret stuff, Math guys should


Good argument.

>>2127596
This is silly, we all know this is complete bull, especial considering the most famous examples are people in STEM trying into the humanities.

>>2127596
Why does everyone who isn't an economist feel qualified to comment on economics?

I'm a mathematician and I feel the anti humanities meme has really hurt our country in recent decades. I think it is even only typically expressed by undergraduates and into that population, freshman mostly. Educated people of any stripe like to ply their thinking abilities in a variety of subjects and even in the arts. It's very natural for such talented people to enjoy a wide selection of interests and topics. I can't think of a single colleague who focuses on their just their expertise. Of course it's wrong in general to speak outside of ones subject with authority but that shouldn't cast intellectual curiosity in a negative light. Beside, scientific learning is pretty limited outside of the hard sciences and most of the struggle between the humanities and the sciences takes place between the former and the soft sciences. And everyone knows they're just fags anyhow.

File: table.jpg (27KB, 450x315px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x315px

>>2128262
Because equality is such a good idea it must be promoted using fake science

*ahem* the spirit level *ahem*

>>2128262
Because it's personal.

>>2128262
Because economists are so bad at making predictions about the economy, that it renders their authority virtually nill.

>>2128275
>Index of problems goes from worse to worse

>>2127596
economics spend years on a theory that doesn't reflect social sensibilities, will never be practiced, and if practiced will probably only make the economy worse

so it's a crapshot I'll take seriously the Austrian and Chicago schools as soon as Austria and Chicago become economic powerhouses instead of irrelevant tourist place and shithole respectively

File: tucker_lol.png (255KB, 630x278px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 630x278px

>>2127679
>>2127596

More like strawman: the thread

>>2128222
That is normally written by scientists, there are classes on [field]'s history for any major too.

>>2128406
Man, this is the most cancerous post I've seen this month, you deserve a prize.

>>2127596
>Why do historians feel qualified to comment on economics?

Economics is neoclassical brainwashing, while history shows actual applications of economics

>>2127644
How is economics any more of a pseudoscience than sociology? And why would history be any better?

>>2127596
Because economics is just the study of human trends, and historians are well versed in human trends.
Because language is intrinsically tied to culture, and politics is influenced heavily by the cultures from which the people involved originate.

>>2127644
>economics is a pseudoscience

You are probably either an ancap or a communist

>>2128275
I don't even care about what you're arguing about, but that is a shitty table.

>>2127596
Economics is more like astrology than it is like science, you're just as qualified to comment on it as a 'professional economist'.

The greatest sham of modern democracy and mass enfranchisement is the foolish belief that any common is capable of contemplating deep questions regarding the public good just as well as any expert. This leads to all sorts of idiocies such as people, who having slightly greater education than the common masses, believing themselves to be possessed of superior knowledge in all subjects pertaining to function of a nation.

>>2129809
>How is economics any more of a pseudoscience than sociology?

>Sociology not psuodoscience
Pro tip if it ends in ology it's probably psuodoscience.

>>2129809
History doesn't consider itself a science. We dont try to use the scientific method, we have our own method

>>2128222
>history of science

Literally worthless.

>>2129809
>>2130036
>unfalsifiable theories
>ridiculous assumptions
>ignores/contradicts results in other disciplines
>ignores/contradicts experimental results in economics
>ignores criticisms and internal contradictions
>unable to explain historical phenomenons

>>2130036
Please anon tell me more of the rigorous experimentation behind the field of macroeconomics. Tell me more of the mathematical rigour in macroeconomics. Tell me more of the equations linking together interest rates and consumer demand and GDP.

>>2130288
Why is it better? Learn to reading comprehension.

>>2130308
Give actual examples of your claims.

Economists have for instance re-evaluated their views on minimum wage due to empirical research.

Kahneman won a Nobel Economics Prize for his work on cognitive biases. Behavorial economics studies how irrationality affects markets.

You seem like an edgy college liberal

>>2130328
He probably bases his views on the "fuck da system" doodle which is scribbled on his high school toilet door.

>>2130285
Biology
Epistemology
Epidemiology
Meteorology
Neurology
Immunology
Sexology
Seismology
Zoology
Theology

>>2130328
>Behavorial economics studies how irrationality affects markets.

Yes but how? There is no rigorous experimentation. Only endless reanalysis of data using statistical methods most economists don't even understand.

Furthermore, there have been thousands of instances where economic theory has proven woefully incapable of describing a situation or just flat out wrong.

When Obama produced his stimulus 8 years ago, it failed to do what he wanted it to do. When Republicans announced their tax plans 16 years ago it failed to do wanted it do. When free trade became status quo, it failed to do what people wanted it do.

>You seem like an edgy college liberal
>I think economics inflating it's self worth and status, therefore I am a liberal.

How is that even liberal. You are just assigning the status of enemy to anyone who disagrees with you, and immediately discard their opinion.

>>2130360
>Proving my point
Biology and it's derivatives are all on the line between pseudoscience and soft serve science.

>>2130386
Free trade has halved extreme poverty in the world in like a decade you retard.

How did the stimulus fail?

Temporary tax cuts aren't magically going to increase investment.

>>2130328
If you know anything about economics you know example already but fine:
>unfalsifiable theories
Value/utility.

>ridiculous assumptions
There's a shit ton to pick here. Homo economicus, rationality, increasing marginal costs, etc.

>ignores/contradicts results in other disciplines
>ignores/contradicts experimental results in economics
Economics completely disregards results in fields that should be extremely important to economics, such as psychology, sociology, neuroscience, political science, and even results in behavioural economics contradict mainstream assumptions.

>ignores criticisms and internal contradictions
Cambridge capital controversy is an ignored criticism, utility is at the same time ordinal and cardinal is an internal contradiction.

>unable to explain historical phenomenons
SEA development.

I'm not saying anything that epistemiologists don't say, stop pretending that i'd have to be edgy to say them.

Economics is a discipline that REQUIRES some level of historical understanding and, at the very least, SOME study of past economist views, who developed their theories based on systems of exchange which existed far into the past.

File: graph.jpg (199KB, 1390x645px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1390x645px

>>2127644
>economics is a pseudoscience
>I think economics is just saying things about trade
>i have no clue the level of analysis that people like Böhm-Bawerk or Irving Fisher added to the discipline

>>2130414
>Free trade has halved extreme poverty in the world in like a decade you retard

The underlying assumption of free trade is that it would benefit all parties involved, but it is clear that it hasn't. It has benefited some parties far more than others, and even produced net negatives in certain groups of people. Look at Haiti and how American Free trade destroyed their agrarian economy plunging their nation into even deeper poverty.

How does free trade also explain the rise of Japan during the Meiji restoration? Through selective tariffs the Japanese successfully became a global power.

>How did the stimulus fail
“Shovel ready was not quite as shovel ready as we thought”

It failed to do what it was promised to do.
>inb4 the crisis was just too great
Science is about making predictions. If your prediction fails your model is shit and needs to be reexamined. Anything else afterwards is meaningless sophistry until tested. Except in economics hindsight is the norm and where any all “thought” goes towards.

>Temporary tax cuts aren't magically going to increase investment.

I'm referring to the flat lining of wages relative to productivity and GDP growth. And 10 years is not temporary. Furthermore, last time I checked, it was supposed to increase investment.

>>2130450
>Irving Fisher
Are you serious?
>Prior to his theory of debt deflation, Fisher had subscribed to the then-prevailing, and still mainstream, theory of general equilibrium. In order to apply this to financial markets, which involve transactions across time in the form of debt – receiving money now in exchange for something in future – he made two further assumptions
>(A) The market must be cleared—and cleared with respect to every interval of time.
>(B) The debts must be paid. (Fisher 1930, p.495)
>In view of the Depression, he rejected equilibrium, and noted that in fact debts might not be paid, but instead defaulted on:
>It is as absurd to assume that, for any long period of time, the variables in the economic organization, or any part of them, will "stay put," in perfect equilibrium, as to assume that the Atlantic Ocean can ever be without a wave. —(Fisher 1933, p. 339)
>He further rejected the notion that over-confidence alone, rather than the resulting debt, was a significant factor in the Depression:
>I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles its victims into debt. —(Fisher 1933, p. 339)
Fisher would agree that modern mainstream economics, which, if anything, has become even more extreme in its assumptions of equilibrium and rationality, is a pseudoscience.

There's nothing particularly impressive/deep about Bohm Bawerk's work.

>>2127596

Why do medical doctors think they're expert investors?

>>2130386
>When Obama produced his stimulus 8 years ago, it failed to do what he wanted it to do.
Any stimulus does what the politicians want it to do short-term. It's the long-term effects that are worrying. Saying the stimulus didn't 'work' is a very uneducated statement. What do you mean by 'work'? It helped small businesses first and foremost, as most stimulus packages would. The right and left agree that it does help short-term.

Your implication that economics isn't a real science is laughable. There are economists who test and fact-check their claims rigorously. What you are talking about is institutional economics, and while institutions DO make their way into this theoretical field, it just doesn't make its way into certain ideas, depending on how basic they are. For instance, a lot of J.S. Mill or Irving Fisher's theories are largely independent of institutional analyses. Institutions like the Federal Reserve do make their way into the theory, but the basic core and tenet of much of their work is with abstract, undefined principles like the interest rates of banks as determined through supply and demand, and impatience to spend income. As opposed to Von Mises who determined the interest rates from politician's tendencies or objectives. This isn't to say, either view is necessarily wrong, it is just that the latter is a more political way of thinking about economics while the former is a more scientific approach. Perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with what economics actually is: many different things.

>>2128275
There aren't very many countries on that graph...

>>2130465
The equilibrium in regards to an interest rate conforming to the impatience of the citizens and the overall willingness of the buyer to lend/borrow is a theory that is widely accepted and developed upon. He published something else at the time though, which is the tendency, as you put, of interest rate changes to lag behind price change rates changing (which is a mouthful, but is the only reason that the interest rate as you've put moves around so often.)

In my copy of The Theory of Interest and the Impatience to Spend Income... the interest rate never fundamentally rests at a single point. Fisher never actually stipulates it comes to rest, in fact, if you take the core of his theory, the interest rateis constantly moving around, being either apprehended or supported in a certain direction by changes in the Fed Funds rate.

>>2130411
they are well within the soft serve sciences

File: 150717142505-11-hiroshima-70th-anniversary-photos-restricted-super-169.jpg (189KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1100x619px

Thanks science!

Dunno OP, Black Science Man talks about politics, theology and sociology a lot

>>2130489
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation#Fisher.27s_formulation_.281933.29
The determinants of the interest rate (point 9) far exceed intertemporal maximization for the late fisher.
You might find the hayek/sraffa debate on interest rates fun too.

>>2130478
>Any stimulus does what the politicians want it to do short-term. It's the long-term effects that are worrying. Saying the stimulus didn't 'work' is a very uneducated statement. What do you mean by 'work'? It helped small businesses first and foremost, as most stimulus packages would. The right and left agree that it does help short-term.

Saying a stimulus built a road is like saying learning English as a subject is useless. It ignores the overarching purpose, which was to boost the economy into a state of recovery and quickly return to consistant high growth and pre crisis unemployment levels.

>There are economists who test and fact-check their claims rigorously
Micro probably, but I never argued against that. Tell me anon how does a person test macroeconomics principles properly when one requires a nation to operate.

You can fit lines all you want to past random data, but it's meaningless until you set up an experiment with control of the variables.

If institutions not using sound theory to apply their craft isn't an indictment of the “soundness” of theory then I don't know what is.

>>2130520
It's not as big of a deal as you think it is. Economics doesn't hang on one little string. Fisher has said time and again, the interest rates are just remuneration for the specific person's inability to pay, or it's there for the chance they won't be able to.

The basic theories are important for what he was working on, but my copy has him explicitly stating that the interest rates never remain where they are. They are constantly moving. If you hadn't said anything, I would assume the inability of people to pay their debts were worked INTO his theory because of his idea of the rate of interest. The link is good, now what BOOKs have you read?

>>2130491
Tell me when they have proper mathematical rigour, and stop using p values as Gospel.

>>2130560
You're an idiot if that's your reasoning for determining that economics isn't a science. These are just terms, but it is indeed tested rigorously like a science. Most major economists who have anything to say at all say so in broad, sociological terms, starting from statistical analyses of first-hand accounts, broadly crossing this infantile 'micro'-'macro' barrier in your mind.

> It ignores the overarching purpose, which was to boost the economy into a state of recovery and quickly return to consistant high growth and pre crisis unemployment levels.
That's never been the purpose, even if they say it is, the purpose is to relieve a lowered reserve ratio or to relieve a lot of pressure of inflation from the population.

The debate is whether these stimulus' keep the economy healthy or not. The answer Von Mises would give us is 'yes they do for a short time, and for certain segments of the population'. The answer Irving Fisher would give us is 'it's just natural because of the lowered reserve ratio'. Some economists, don't answer ethical questions and end up just incorporating these adjustments in the distribution of currency into their policy, while other economists end up incorporating the distribution of the currency into a mental framework for the citizens and politicians involved. That's really the core of the debate. It's happening on a field quite radically different than politics when it comes to stimulus and economics, but almost every single economist agrees too many capital injections harm the economy.

>>2130561
If a specific person's inability to pay remained constant through time, should interest rates remain constant?
And what do you want, a picture of my bookshelves?

>>2130386
Just because there is little consensus among economist on what kind of countercyclical policy is the best doesn't mean that economics is a pseudoscience.

>When free trade became status quo, it failed to do what people wanted it do.

No it didn't

>>2130600
No, I'm just wondering what economics you're reading :3 Have you read The Wealth of Nations?

Not for that individual, no. If you mean people overall, systemic risk would go up, which would push the interest of safe loans down and mortgaged or subprime loans up.

File: bill_nye_funny_by_irish156-d3lkgc0.jpg (43KB, 490x327px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 490x327px

>>2127596
Economics is a key factor in history.

Linguists is a key factor in politics.

Plus, well, anyone can comment on anything.

Though, on top of that, the folks of which you are referring to, and garner media attention, tend to have a broader range of education, and are often from the era where "Ph.D." lived up to its name.

Granted, there are exceptions, like how Bill Nye, whose only non-honorary degree is the equivalent of a technical school engineering degree, considers himself qualified to be a spokesman for theoretical sciences and publicly debate evolution.

>>2130590
>These are just terms, but it is indeed tested rigorously like a science

Fucking how anon. Observing data found in the wild and then building complex theories around them isn't science. You need controlled tests.

>>2130615
Currently slowly reading An Outline of the History of Economic Thought when i find time from work + amateur programming + making a course + shitposting on /his/ + life. In fact i should go buy a present for my nephew right now.
In any case, Fisher's point about "hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation" is much more in line with a liquidity preference theory of interest than with intertemporal preference/risk.

>>2127596
We've had this exact thread before.

>>2130651
Like I said, there are different kinds of economics. With Irving Fisher you will find standard deviations and coorelation coefficients, with Von Mises you will find no statistical fact-chēcking or graphs. :/

>>2130652
>In any case, Fisher's point about "hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation" is much more in line with a liquidity preference theory of interest than with intertemporal preference/risk.
It's both right? Or are you saying these are incompatible? I mean, you need liquidity and the interest rates for securities, the more liquid they are will be smaller, as stated by Fisher. But 'intertemporal' preference/risk sounds suspiciously a lot like exactly how Fisher describes human preference overall for money at a certain time compared to the future time periods.

>>2130781
Neither of those things are experiments. “Correcting” your data with coefficients and statistical analysis is no replacement for an actual controlled experiment.

>>2127668
>not interpret it
why do STEMlords feel qualified to speak on history

>>2130864
Mathematics is a science. How exactly do you perform 'experiments' in mathematics? Therein lies your answer.

>LAWS, GOLD MOVEMENTS, STOCK EXCHANGE SPECULATION, BANKING CUSTOMS AND POLICIES, GOVERNMENTAL FINANCE, CORPORATION PRACTICE, INVESTMENT TRUSTS AND MANY OTHER FACTORS WORK THEIR INFLUENCES ON THE SO-CALLED MONEY MARKET WHERE INTEREST RATES ARE DETERMINED. PRACTICALLY, THESE MATTERS ARE OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL THEORY. WHILE THEORY, IN OTHER WORDS, ASSUMES A WAVELESS SEA, ACTUAL, PRACTICAL LIFE REPRESENTS A CHOPPY ONE

And here is the quote you/Wikipedia are referencing. It's simply just him recapitulating that his theory is just that: theory. Economics, like science, mathematics, and so on is simply a theoretical field.

Historian are irrelevant memesters so they try to compensate by attaching themselves to a field that possesses a semblance of seriousness and then parroting what they learned there.

>>2131116
Holy KEK, I embrace thee

>>2130414
>Free trade has halved extreme poverty in the world in like a decade you retard.

No that was the Communist Party of China and all of the poverty reduction in the last half decade was in China.

>inb4 you know nothing about China except memes and think 'opening up & reforms' means free trade or capitalism

>>2130581
one word: Tribology

>>2131318
>the only poor people that got lifted out of poverty in the last half decade were in china and china alone.

File: 1452607247355.png (214KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 400x399px

>>2131318
>all of the poverty reduction in the last half decade was in China.

>>2131033
>Mathematics is a science

Annihilate yourself. Mathematics is most certainly not science. In fact it is in many ways the opposite of mathematics.

>>2132332
So you are saying a requirement of science is empirical testing? How can't you test economic theories on real statistical data sets?

Mathematics being a science is a topic of debate

File: white[1].jpg (7KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 220x293px

>>2127668
OKAY RANKEAN

LOL

>>2128297
They're pretty good at it, everyone just ignores or deliberately misinterprets them to fit their own narative

>>2132343
>So you are saying a requirement of science is empirical testing?

Yes. My point exactly.

>How can't you test economic theories on real statistical data sets?

Because those data sets aren't properly controlled. They nearly always result from a system with far too many variables in flux to be called a meaningful experiment.

File: Keynes_1933.jpg (84KB, 289x300px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 289x300px

>>2132434
>They nearly always result from a system with far too many variables in flux to be called a meaningful experiment.
This is a funny debate. You've essentially stated the point of economics. The entirety of the purpose of the field is to be able, in a vacuum, to commonly lay out general theories and trends that the interest rate/monetary unit(the object of focus will vary considerably) will follow when exposed to real conditions in the economic world.

Your stipulation is that these theories do not hold true, but if this were the case, they would not be theories at all. Every economist uses historical, empirical data to analyze current economic situations. They wouldn't be theories if they didn't check their history. For instance, Irving Fisher checks the theory of a rising rate of price changes having a higher correlation coefficient one year after the rise in the rate of price changes has increased by using data sets from not only different time periods, but including more variables than before as well.

There is absolutely no way he would have formulated these theories if he did not double check his facts.

Other economists like Von Mises or Keynes use a lot of terms and technical institutional analysis, but even they use historical, empirical data to support their theories.

>>2132472
>variables
This should be prices.

Big difference. Sorry.

>>2130465
>There's nothing particularly impressive/deep about Bohm Bawerk's work.
I can't believe this slipped my mind. The theories of Böhm Bawerk are literally mentioned in every economic work after he wrote his work in the late 19th century. His views of the preference of the marginal utility of present over future goods is extremely important to economic theories.

>>2128275
what is hing income inequality

>>2130581
>If you don't have proper mathematical riguor then you are not a science
Ok

>>2130460
It's not an underlying assumption, and Krugman won a Nobel for showing cases where it isn't.

Holy shit, learn a single thing about what you criticize.

File: typical-his-poster.png (170KB, 1079x812px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1079x812px

>>2130637
How can economics be a key factor in history when the typical history major fails college algebra, nevermind other basic math like calculus?

And inb4 you say something: those "economics" majors who skip math are useless.

>>2130651
Are you familiar with any of the methodology used to study minimum wage, for instance? If not, shut up.

>>2127596
They are humanists so they can only feel. Some feel qualified.

>>2132472
>Your stipulation is that these theories do not hold true

I never said that, what I said is that economics is not a science. You can glean a lot of information from real world data sets, but in the end it's just that gleaning, not science.

>including more variables than before as well.
Literally the exact opposite of what he should have done.

>>2133716
Ignore the second half.

>>2130288
>History doesnt consider itself as science

What the fuck.
Do you mind elaborating your claim?

>>2132908
Does it involve paying a statistically representative sample of society a minimum wage of X dollars over a period of Z time for the same job, while they all have the exact same living conditions and educational background and overall aspirations to name a few variables that need to be kept equal? And another group with the exact same conditions except they're paid Y wages?

>>2133716
I don't get it, you have economic theories, then you test them against historically accurate statistical graphs/charts. What exactly is it about this process that doesn't make it a science? People compare it to physics all the time, because Physicists cannot correctly guess real world movements of objects in the chaotic real world with all of the influences, only in a vacuum, like many of Fisher's theories of the great body of the Atlantic Ocean without a single wave.

File: 1481994396418.jpg (59KB, 564x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 564x800px

>>2127596
As a STEMfag This is a strawman.

Almost everyone is interested in some kind of interdisciplinary dialog, and so occasionally comes off sounding uninformed as they try to understand things they did not dedicate their career to.

STEM people regularly put down hishum folks and vice-versa. The truth is people don't like the limitations of their own knowledge and fields and so grow insecure and try to comment on the limitations of other fields and academics.

Everyone becomes frustrated with each other's poor attempts at understanding, but we should be happy there even is interdisciplinary dialog

>>2127596
never heard of a linguist "commenting" on game theory. examples?

>>2130637
>Linguists is a key factor in politics.
yet another person who doesn't realize they don't know what linguistics is.

>>2128268

Based Anon

>>2130411

Kill yoursef you lowlife. Never seen anyone get btfo This hard

>immunology and zoology
>not legit sciences

Youre pathetic. And no, Im not The same guy either

>>2134707
If you consider yourself a 'STEMfag', you're a retard.

I'll go through entire weeks of essentially reading JUST mathematical proofs of economic theories and Archimedean engineering concepts, and then follow it up with a lot of theory-based philosophical, moral word on pedagogy or epistemological, social concepts, very term heavy.

>restricting yourself to reading only certain types of things
Dingus

File: 1345921964618.jpg (185KB, 468x500px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 468x500px

>>2127668

Honestly didn't think this level of idiocy existed. That's literally what a historians job is.

Wew

>>2136090
Chomsky?

>>2136287
If you keep this academic level of historical linguistic analysis on here, he might be tempted to post.

I remember someone on here said he sent him a few emails and he responded poorly.

>>2127596


as a youthful philotard, I find it necessary to elite our remembrance of Plato works.

Did not Aristotle make mention of this?

When he consulted the politician and the artisan, was not the understand that, in their trade, they are generally correct, but because of that confidence in trade, they as an identity believe their trade corresponds, in analogy, to the rest of the world.

In knowing that his soldiering, drinking, strength, and stone mason work made him only good at those things, was he not the wisest man in Athens?

>>2127596
As a linguist, I believe the only thing I have the credibility to comment on is language, specifically Afro-Asiatic and Germanic languages.

>>2136150
>mathematical proofs of economic theories
...
Jesus Christ.

>implying people only study one subject their entire lives
>implying physicists know nothing of history and historians know nothing of physics
>implying a basic understanding if economics is that difficult to comprehend

>>2130360
Ethered. Fucking mic drop!

File: fisher.jpg (88KB, 901x614px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 901x614px

>>2136425
Have you read Irving Fisher?

Here's a snippet of his bit on marginal utility.

>>2127596
Both sides and many more are guilty of this. Unless you double major or something.

>>2130285
>GEOLOGY IS A PSUEDOSCIENCE
guess I will cry into my MSc degree.

>>2127596
This post gave me cancer


/his/ is truly the single most reddit board on all *chans

>>2133965
>What exactly is it about this process that doesn't make it a science?

Because your can still fall into the trap of making models to fit the past. That isn't science. Science is predictive in nature. And unless you can engineer a series of toy economies to play around with with controlled variables, you can't test shit. In physics you have a great body of tests with ever increasingly sophisticated controls accounting for all possible variables, backed up by mathematical rigour.

>>2136547
>Probably

>>2137632
But scientific testing is all done in a vacuum. If your argument is the actual system has too many variables to reliably predict interest rate movement, for instance, you would be right. However, you don't perform physics testing in the elements, just like you don't 'test' economic theories on an expecting population. What you do, is develop heuristics using models and equations derived from past thought and contemporary data trends, fact checked statistically or empirically.

It's basically a science. More of a science than politics or even math, in some ways.

>>2132383
>They're pretty good at it
They're really not. If climatology, or evolutionary biology or physics failed to predict events on the scale economists routinely miss, they'd go back to the drawing board and rework everything.

>>2137674
>evolutionary biology
>real
Okay, we're dealing with a retard here folks.

>>2137685
What? A lot of bullshit gets published in evolutionary biology, but people who publish bullshit also routinely get shit on by other evolutionary biologists (just ask one of them about Robin Baker).

I'm not gonna say it's not a skeevy field sometimes, but it's not utter bullshit -- it's just a lot closer to the humanities than most evo. biologists would probably like to admit. Suffers from some of the same problems, it's hard to come up with falsifiable claims. A LOT of bullshit gets published in anthro, archaeological and historical journals too, and presumably you don't think those fields aren't
>real
or you wouldn't be on a /his/tory and humanities board.

>>2137699
Unfortunately it's not, you're wrong, and many other scientists would disagree with Darwin's Theory. The entire field of evolutionary biology stands on shaky logical assumptions.

>>2137708
OK, I just want to make absolutely sure I'm understanding you properly. While Darwin was right in the main, he obviously had a mid-19th-century understanding of biology and genetics, and got a lot of (relatively) little stuff wrong. Mendelian inheritance hadn't yet been discovered, for instance.

So. Are you quibbling with the little stuff, or with the theory of evolution, as we understand it today?

>>2137658
>It's basically a science.
But it fundamentally isn't

>More of a science than politics or even math, in some ways.
Which doesn't matter. You are or you aren't.

>>2136547
Geo-logy.
One letter off from Geo-ology.

File: just.png (56KB, 157x146px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 157x146px

>>2136150
Did I say I restricted myself to only reading certain types of things?

No. I said people should get along and be glad there's even an interdisciplinary dialog.

It's like you ignored the entire meaning of my post, came up with the worst interpretation possible, and added a nice peppering of smug superiority.

It's really sad that no matter how basic and agreeable something I say is, some autist has to come out of the woodwork and find a way to interpret me as the scum of the earth.

I called myself a STEMfag because of what I major in, not because I restrict myself to anything. That assumption was courtesy of you.

For someone who reads mathematical proofs you sure have trouble making it through a 4chan post.

>>2130315
Its a non-qeustion. History doesn't try to be a science or pose as one.

>>2133870
History as a methodology has purposely distanced itself from science. The method admits that it works in a grey area between facts and speculation. its more like a court room where we determine is probable than a lab.

>>2138393
Why do historians feel qualified to comment on economics, tard?

>>2128222
that useless part everyone skips and still get shit done?

>>2138194
No one wants to BE anything, academically, I'm just reiterating what other Economists have said regarding the science.

>>2137732
Darwinian evolution as a whole is fundamentally one of the worst theories ever developed and stands on shaky theories

>>2128275
>japan
f(sides)=phi

>>2128275
>worse to worse
>low to hing
Why should I trust this graph?

>>2139188
>that useless part everyone skips
Why do people still feel the need to read the Almagest, even if it is physically incorrect?

Therein lies the answers to the questions you are searching for.

>>2139337
Some parts are, rather.

ITT: we play the 4chan "everything I don't like is unfalsifiable!!!!" roulette

File: logical-fallacies.png (1MB, 1283x917px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1283x917px

>>2138593
What...

Hold on. Everyone on 4chan look at this retard, you are literally the shit on the surface of my shoes that holds us all back. Lets look at the multifaceted logical fallacies this moron makes with this one little post

1) Composition/division fallacy. More common than you think. This moron thinks that because some historians feel inclined to comment on economics, that no historians can. He thinks that because some historians have no knowledge of economics, all historians have no knowledge of economics.

2) No True Scotsman as regards the academic disciplines. In other words, you are literally organizing the academic disciplines within your mind so that a) they are not allowed to comment on other academic disciplines unless they've been 'branded' as a historian, scientist, economist, whatever and b) that somehow all historians &c. are somehow a collective hivemind of their academic branch of understanding of the world, that they all move together, and that they all do, think, and collectively say the same things.

You are a moron.

>>2139337
>Almagest
that's a mathematical text containing mathematical information. That's useful even if wrong because it can be used for something. You don't need to know who Ptolemy was to use his treatises though, and that's how useless the historical blurb usually is at the beginning of books.

>>2128213
Every time philosophy does something obviously great and useful the scientific community pretends they did it in the first place. Whether it be the 'hard' sciences or the soft.
Last time for the hard sciences it was computer science, the time before that it was mathematical logic.
History has a similar issue, it is incredibly useful in conjunction with political philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, and the theory of science, but any contributions to those fields are promptly ignored once any science advocate feels threatened.

>>2139574
>theorize unuseable, unobservable, unprovable thesis
>science creates, out of a completely different appriach, something that can, under the right scrutiny, be categorized as being in the same metarealm of the first thing
>"oh look guise, philosophy was here first"
You're just like some sort of metaphysical beta cuck, who complains you should be recognized while the jock called science fucks her senseless.

File: 1482463522512.png (155KB, 1432x890px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1432x890px

>>2128213
>>2139574
/sci/ just usually accepts that dwelling on untestable things doesn't make you move forward and takes a more practical approach to stuff.

>>2139664
I can't... that image... what?

>>2139664
And what does isoamyl acetate taste like

>>2139635
What the ever loving fuck are you talking about?
How do you think these 'scientific' approaches get created you retard?
The philosophers who made mathematical logic did not just say 'man this would be a great idea' they created the fundamental bases for it and started creating the rules towards it along with the proofs.
Philosophy is the acknowledgement that not everything worth thinking about is testable and that you don't get useful testable approaches through testing, you get it through intelligently defining your problems.
You retards literally call philosophy stupid because it is easier to disagree with it.

>>2139694
the empirical sensation you feel when chewing banana
>>2139704
that's just short of saying every accomplishment you've ever reached was programed into you by your father when you were leaving the tip of his cock.

>>2139704
>everything in the world is philosophy
Way to go, that's the attitude that makes people stop paying proper attention.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (50KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1280x720px

>>2139750
That is absolutely not just short of that, and why are you concerned with feeling superior to notating the chemical taste of banana rather than another aspect of a banana.

Seriously.

>>2139750
>can speak only in memes
I didn't say philosophy takes all of the credit of any specific science that it birthed, but saying it deserves no credit for creating what it created is just stupid.

>>2139754
I'm not actually sure what I think of that, on the one hand, limiting 'philosophy' to simply academic philosophers is wrong, but I do agree that some distinctions must be made.
Also I specifically stated that what is studied in philosophy is basically 'what is studied that isn't science', which I *think* is fairly accurate.

>>2139775
It's not because of the taste notation anon, it's the roundabout vs. direct aproach to the subject
>>2139780
And I'm saying if you shouldn't consider that broadness of credit entitlement, the logic behind it could be applied to say that language should take credit for everything created by more than one person and we should be sucking /lit/'s cock
>>2139806
fair enough, I admit it was cherry picking of my part too.

>>2139817
I couldn't really see the purpose of the comic, no. Thank you for telling me why you compared and contrasted the two, I didn't have any idea of the rhetoric you were using.

>>2139831
It's okay, I think I started trying to point that out but the meaning got lost all over the place in trying to make le ebin meme. You can see I kinda rushed it because it was supposed to say /sci/ instead of scientists but I forgot to edit that.

>>2139847
How fair is this battle of double sarcasm going to last, you dense/tricky motherfucker?

>>2139851
I stopped the sarcasm after >2139817
so I guess you can probably drop the "tricky" and just keep "dense". I already had enough fun with >>2139670's reaction, so I can call it quits unless you want to bring another subject...

>>2139817
>language should take credit for everything created by more than one person and we should be sucking /lit/'s cock
I think that's a category error, if one person created all language then that person would be incredibly intellectually honorable (prestigious? credited?), that doesn't hold for /lit/ or the theorists of language necessarily.
Moreover in the cases of actual discovery there is a possibility a discovery or progress of knowledge would have happened anyway without that person and that that person's accomplishments maybe only sped up the process by a bit.
Moreover(/therefore) I think giving all of the praise to creator because everything else that was done was dependent on them is incorrect. That's not contradictory with them getting some credit or being important.

>>2132786
Ex.
1% has more money than 99%

>>2139870
>Moreover(/therefore) I think giving all of the praise to creator because everything else that was done was dependent on them is incorrect. That's not contradictory with them getting some credit or being important.
That I can get behind. My qualms on credit were mostly with the holier than thou attitude of >>2139574
I didn't mean to say language was created by one person. I meant to say that anything created by more than one person(including one creator basing himself on knowledge found out by other person) needed language to transfer the ideas necessary for this creation between peers, so >>2139780's logic could be twisted into assigning credit on everything to linguists old and new, and the board that discusses language and it's works would be superior in this interboards bout.

>>2139885
>could be twisted into assigning credit on everything to linguists old and new
What I was saying in the last post is that I didn't say 'because philosophy is the basis of science, philosophers are therefore responsible for all of science', but (basically)'because philosophy is the basis of science philosophy is somewhat responsible for science'.
My logic is: philosophy creates science therefore philosophy must have some value
Your logic is: language is necessary to communicate therefore those who study language must be useful.
If you said: language is necessary to communicate therefore language must be useful.
Then there would be no problem with your logic, it would clearly be correct.
I think the issue is that you thought I was arguing directly for philosophers when I was instead arguing indirectly by trying to show philosophy is useful.
>holier than thou attitude
I shouldn't have said the scientific community (not really their mistakes), but I have little but contempt for scientism.

>>2140026
My association of language and /lit/ derives mostly from the tone of this >>2128213 original comic, since it seems to promote a board war by associating each subject to a group.
Glad we got the rest cleared up, I don't think I disagree with you anymore for now. Good night dude.

>>2136512
this is basic fucking calculus dude, you're no genius for understanding this

>>2140249
I'm not implicating any high level of mathematics. His point was that there are not mathematical proofs in economics, and for some of Irving Fisher's work, that's exactly what it is.