Liberalism or socialism?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you have to think of economics in terms of political ideas? Yes. The only economist I could really think of that you would speak of would be somebody like Robin Hahnel or some other person off in that crazy direction, probably so far out of the academic circle of the profession that they aren't even listened to, much less scrutinized.


Still is different than the private society and it still has problems with economic calculation because of the fact that we are combining private decisions with those of a mass and ultimately will run into issues of miscoordination between political groups or political power plays as we see with politics today.

Ok, so? Right now you are talking to me.


Surprise? I am not surprised by whatever you do. You are a crazy sociology professor. Economists already know that sociologists are useless and as such we already try to do your jobs for you.

No, I mean economists I know personally.



As I said, I don't know about much about economics. Unless I have read something specific on a subject, as I have on the subject of market socialism, I am hesitant to discuss subjects outside of my area of expertise.



ad hominem. I avoided it. You did not. End of discussion.

Interesting.




HA HA HA HA!! !! Ad hominem? That is a term typically used in argumentation where I try to discredit your argument by attacking you. There was no argument there, but rather I just randomly attacked you and your field. Frankly, Odin already did something similar by arguing that sociologists weren't really scientists but rather crackpots employed for a liberal agenda. My comment could at least be taken as a joke, especially given that it came out of nowhere and referenced an idea that was never brought up(economic imperialism a la Gary Becker).

What do you mean by this?



Stephen Colbert: Do they give a Nobel Prize for throwing your own feces?

Dr. Peter Agre: That’s the economics prize, I think.

Sorry..

But in all seriousness, economics is a social science just sociology, and based on similar methods. How can you say one is useless in comparison to the other?

Last edited by Phagocyte on 23 Dec 2007, 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

A video about economics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

No, really they are based on VERY different methods and methodologies. Economics is based upon empirical data, and mathematical analysis based upon theories and sociology has a very strong element of qualitative research and a much different theoretical background compared to economics(homo economicus, rationality, and VERY HEAVY emphasis on math and statistics, whereas sociology has influence from figures such as Marx, postmodernist ideas, and can include qualitative data). Finally, economists often times will do sociological work or work in many other fields based upon their will and the field has become very noted for how diverse it allows itself to be. Economics is essentially succeeding at being the science sociology always wanted to be due to its inclusiveness.

Dr Agre's comment, is interesting perhaps, but not accurate. Economists are rewarded for innovation in methods of research, for explaining phenomena, or for creating theories, with the latter 2 being most common and often requiring intensive math and statistics. It may be true that economists have poor predicting power, but the amount of data processed by an economy exceeds that which a supercomputer can process and includes subjective valuations by almost every human being who interacts with other human beings, although in some cases it is more indirect than others.

Falsificability operates within what Foucault called an episteme (somewhat similar to Kuhn's concept of paradigm or Wittgenstein's language game). Since the researcher is working within the framework of that episteme, the falsification cannot be completed. To do so would require a questioning of the methodological rules under which the research is conducted.

There is nothing wrong with falsification per se. However, it has limits, and those limits are not always recognized by researchers. IMO, falsification should be conducted within the framework of utility (pragmatism). A good null hypothesis is not only one which can be falsified, but one which can point to an alternative hypothesis which works.

I'm not going to argue with you. Once people begin attacking me, rather than the issue, I back out.

Thank you for your reply.

But wait, an episteme is like a body of knowledge, right? If the framework of the scientific method as a whole is incomplete, then what other basis could scientific analysis be extended to? How could you "expand" the framework into other epistemes in order to complete the falsification?

Sorry if I seem a little lost, I'm a science student if you couldn't have guessed.

I know, I couldn't resist.

I don't mean any disrespect to economists, though. I just finished up a college economics course. I learned a lot, the professor is a great guy, but it really just wasn't for me. I prefer to enjoy the comfort of merely having to look down the eyepiece of a microscope to verify my area of study.

Sine I am a left-liberal that is not totally accurate. I was attacking the PoMo "Left" because they are giving us non-crazy left-wingers a bad name, just as supply-siders give old-school fiscal conservatives a bad name. The stereotype used by the Right of the ideologically motivated postmodernist social science professor wasn't concocted out of thin air.

I know your ideology somewhat, my statement if taken as a joke which it partially was just a rather mean one, had a lot of basis for it too given the clashes between economists and sociologists and the tendency of economists to invade sociology. Really though, I do have a mean and twisted sense of humor, and that was not something that could be traditionally called an ad hominem due to a lack of context for it to be an ad hominem, I responded to something very separate from our argument.

I also know that you are correct. Studies on bias in academia show a very clear bias and there are certainly many intelligent individuals who have been in academia who would attest to the bias there. Really though, my statement was not bereft of truth but rather a truth stated rather mockingly partially because I was rather annoyed about having a discussion on the use of the term "leftist".