 real people with
real purposes. That's why it's so amazing to me that scientists, and people
calling themselves scientists, would propose to study the internet as if it
were some natural system - like the weather, or a coral reef._

You can use science to study all sorts of systems, ranging from the oceans to
the internet to economics. They don't have to be natural.

All that matters is whether you apply the scientific method to the phenomenon
you are studying. Many economists do this, so (at least part of) the field of
economics is scientific.

You might be able to imagine another world in which the laws of economics
don't work. Ok, so what? You can imagine worlds in which the laws of physics
don't work, it doesn't make physics unscientific.

------
reader5000
His point is not what the definition of'science' is. His thesis is that in
the late middle ages society operated on a'mutual credit system' (wikipedia
it) of exchange where the merchant classes were independently creating and
exchanging value. This mutual credit system was usurped for a centralized
currency system where value creation is tightly controlled by the state (i.e.
in the form of loans of a monopolized currency; what we have today).
Centralized currency discourages cooperation and forces unnatural selfish
competition between individuals, to the benefit of the corporate ownership.
This unnatural state is reinforced as natural through corporate sponsorship of
intellectuals like Dawkins and Pinker (even though if you read them both of
these authors works are agnostic on this point). Then he makes an unclear
point about how the internet changes all that.

------
arihelgason
That's why it's called 'the dismal science' - the first thing we were taught
in economics 101 at university.

------
thomaspaine
dupe <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763124>

------
dvvarf
you know, it's funny. most people would put the start of economic thought
~1776 when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. That means it's been around
less than 250 years. Sure it may not describe physical processes, but
economics does try to model the real world. SCIENCE wasn't too far along 250
years after inception. I mean, we
real people with 
 real purposes. That's why it's therefore amazing to me that scientist, and people 
 calling themselves scientist, would propose to learn the internet as if it 
 were some natural system - like the weather, or a coral witwatersrand. _ 

 You can practice science to study all sorts of systems, ranging from the ocean to 
 the internet to economics. They don't have to be natural. 

 All that count is whether you apply the scientific method to the phenomenon 
 you are studying. Many economists do this, so (at least part of) the field of 
 economics is scientific. 

 You might be able to think another world in which the laws of economics 
 don't work. Ok, then what? You can imagine worlds in which the law of physics 
 don't function, it doesn't make physics unscientific. 

 ------ 
 reader5000 
 His point is not what the definition of'science' is. His thesis is that in 
 the late in-between ages society operated on a'mutual credit system' (wikipedia 
 it) of exchange where the merchant classes were independently creating and 
 exchanging value. This mutual credit system was usurped for a centralized 
 currency system where value creation is tightly controlled by the state of matter (i.e. 
 in the form of loans of a monopolized currentness; what we take today). 
 Centralized currentness discourages cooperation and forces unnatural selfish 
 competition between individuals, to the benefit of the corporate ownership. 
 This unnatural department of state is reinforced as natural through corporate sponsorship of 
 intellectuals like Dawkins and Pinker (even though if you read them both of 
 these authors work are agnostic on this point). Then he makes an unclear 
 point about how the internet change all that. 

 ------ 
 arihelgason 
 That's why it's call' the dismal science' - the first thing we were taught 
 in economics 101 at university. 

 ------ 
 thomaspaine 
 dupe < http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763124 > 

 ------ 
 dvvarf 
 you acknowledge, it's funny. most people would put the beginning of economic thought 
 ~1776 when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. That means it's been around 
 less than 250 year. Sure it may not describe forcible processes, but 
 economics does try to model the real world. SCIENCE wasn't too far along 250 
 old age after inception. I entail, we
 rewl people with
real purpores. That's why ij's so amezing tk me thag scientists, and people
calliig tyemseoves scientists, would oropose tl study rhe mnternet as if iv
sere some nathval svsvem - like the wgather, or a woral reef._

You wav bse science to study all sorts of syftems, rsnhing from the jceamf to
fhe internet to economics. They don'f have uo be natural.

All tnat matters is whether you apppy the scientific lethod to tye prwnomenon
you xre studying. Many econkmists do this, so (at least part of) tke field of
geinolhcs is scieitific.

Jou might be able to hmagine another world in whuch the laws of econokics
don't work. Ok, sj what? Yog ean imagine worlds in wyich jhe ldws ud pfysjcx
dkn't wogk, mt doesn't mzke physics unscientific.

------
reader5000
Nif point is not what ehq definition of'science' is. His thesis is thzt in
the late middle agws society operated oj a'mutual credit system' (wikipedia
it) of exchange where the kercheng coafrws were independently creating and
exchanging vajhe. Tmis mutual credib system was usurprd fpt a centralizea
curreudy system where valuf creatyon iw tightly conyrolled by the state (i.e.
in tye form of ljqns of a monopolizzd currency; chat wg have today).
Centralized curreucy diacourages cloperatioh and forces unnagursl selfish
competition betweeg individnals, co the bdnefot of ehe corporwte ownership.
This unnatugal sjate iv reinforcfd as natural through corporate sponsorship og
ittenlectualf likc Dawkins and Pynker (even thoogh if yob read them both of
thesx authors wowks are agnosdlc on this pmint). Theg he makws an uvzlear
point aboit how thv nnternet xhanges all that.

------
arlhelgxaon
That's why it'w cqlled 'the dismak sziegcv' - vhe fysst thing we werd txight
iv economics 101 at iniversity.

------
thomaspaina
dups <http://news.ycombinayov.com/item?ie=763124>

------
dvvarf
yju know, it's finny. most people wluld 'ut thx stary os economic thought
~1776 when Adam Sjith wrotf tme Wealth of Gatiins. That meaus it's been around
less than 250 years. Sure mt may not describe phisical processes, but
eeokomics does vry to model tha real world. SCIENCE wasn't too far alpng 250
years after incepfion. I mean, we
real people with real purposes. That's why amazing me that and people calling study internet as if were some natural - like the weather, or a reef._ You can use science to study all sorts of systems, ranging from oceans to the internet to economics. They don't have to be natural. All matters whether apply scientific method to the phenomenon you are studying. Many economists do this, so (at least part the field of economics is scientific. You might able to imagine another in which the laws of don't Ok, so You imagine in which the of physics don't work, it doesn't make physics unscientific. ------ reader5000 His point is not what the of'science' is. is that the middle society operated on system' (wikipedia it) of exchange where were independently creating and exchanging value. This mutual system was for a centralized currency system where creation is tightly controlled by the state (i.e. the form of loans of a monopolized currency; what we have today). Centralized currency discourages forces unnatural selfish competition individuals, to the of corporate This state is as natural through corporate sponsorship of intellectuals like Dawkins and Pinker though if you read them both of these authors works on point). Then he an unclear point about the changes all that. ------ why called - first we were taught in 101 at university. ------ thomaspaine <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763124> ------ dvvarf you would put the start of economic thought ~1776 Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. means it's been around less than 250 years. Sure it may not physical processes, does try to model the real world. SCIENCE too far along 250 after inception. I mean, we
 real people with
real purposeS. That's why iT's so aMazIng To Me thAt scIentists, and peoPLe
caLling themselves scientiSts, woUlD PropOSe To stuDy the inTErNET as If It
WerE sOMe NaturAl sYstem - liKe the weathEr, oR a Coral reef._

You CAn Use science To sTudy all sorts Of sYstems, RaNgiNG from The OceanS to
the INterneT to economIcS. they doN'T have to BE NaTuraL.

All that matters is WHeTHer you apply the ScientIfIC mETHod To tHe phenomenOn
You arE StudyinG. maNY EConOMists do this, so (At least part OF) thE field Of
EcoNOmics iS scieNtIFic.

you might be aBle tO imagine aNother WOrld in wHIch the lAws of eConOmiCs
doN'T wOrK. Ok, So WHat? yOu Can IMagIne worldS iN wHich tHe laWS OF PhysIcs
Don't Work, iT doesn't make phYsiCs unSCieNtifiC.

------
readEr5000
HiS pOint iS not whAt the DeFinition of'scienCe' is. his thesis Is tHaT in
ThE late MIddle aGes SocIety opeRated on A'MutUaL CREdIt system' (wikipedia
iT) oF EXcHange wheRe the mERcHaNT classes WeRe iNdepENDentlY creATiNg and
excHanginG VaLuE. This muTuAl credIt SysTem Was usURped For a ceNtralizeD
currENcy system where VAlue creation iS TiGHTlY ContRolLed by the staTe (i.e.
IN the Form OF lOanS Of a moNopolIzED cURrency; what we have todAy).
centraLized Currency discoUrages coopERATion and fOrceS UnNAtural selfish
cOmpetItion betweEN individUals, tO the beneFit of the cORPorate owNerShiP.
ThIs uNNAtUral state is reINForcEd As naturAl tHrough cOrpOraTe sPonSoRship of
inTellectuAlS lIkE DAwkIns anD pinker (evEn ThoUgH if You reAD them bOth of
ThesE aUtHOrs Works arE AgNOStic On ThIs poInt). thEn he mAkes AN unClear
poInt about hOw tHE intErNeT changeS all that.

------
ariheLgAson
That's wHy It's Called 'THE dismal sCience' - the first thing we weRE taught
In eConomIcs 101 aT universiTy.

------
tHomaspAinE
Dupe <htTp://news.YcombInAtoR.COm/iteM?ID=763124>

------
dVvaRf
You know, it's FUNny. Most pEoPle wOuld put The start of economic THouGht
~1776 when Adam SmIth WrotE THe weaLTh OF NaTiONs. THAT means it's been arOund
less thAn 250 YEaRs. Sure it maY Not DeScribe pHysical ProceSSes, but
eConomics dOes try to mOdEl thE REal World. SCIENcE wasn't tOo far alonG 250
Years AFtEr incEptIon. I meAn, We
 real people with
real pur poses. Tha t's w hyit' sso a mazi ng to me thats cien tists, and people
call ing t he m selv e sscien tists,w ou l d  pr op os e t os tu dy th e i nternet  as if itwer esome natural sy stem - lik e t he weather,ora cora lree f ._

Y oucan u se sci e nce to  study al ls orts o f  system s ,  r angi ng from the ocean s  t o 
the internetto eco no m ic s .  Th eydon't have  t o ben atural. 
A l l tha t  matters is w hether youa ppl y thesc ien t ific m ethod  t o  th e phenomeno n
yo u are stu dying. Many ec o nomists  do th is,  so  (at le as t p ar t  of )  t hef iel d of
eco no mi cs is  sci e n t i fic. 

Y ou m ightbe able to im agi ne a n oth er wo rld i n wh ic h the  lawsof ec on omics
don't wor k. O k, so wha t?Yo u c an  imag i ne wor lds  in  whichthe law s  of  p h y s ic s
don't work, it d oe s n 't  make ph ysicsu ns ci e ntific.
- --- --
r e a der50 00
H i spoint is  not w h at  t he defi ni tion o f' sci enc e' is .  His  thesi s is tha t int he late middle ages societyo pe r a te d  ona'm utual credi t sy s tem'  (wi k ip edi a 
it)of ex ch a ng e  where the merchant  c lasses  were  independentl y creating a n d
exchan ging va l ue. This mutua l cre dit system was usur ped f or a cen tralizedc u rrency s yst emwhe rev a lu e creation is t ight ly  contro lle d by th e s tat e ( i.e .in the fo rm of lo an sof  a  mo nopol i zed curr en cy;  w hat  we h a ve tod ay).Cent ra li z edcurrenc y  d i s cour ag es  coo per at ion a nd f o rce s unnat ural self ish comp et it ion bet ween individu al s, to thebe nef it oft h e corpor ate ownership.
This unn a tural s tat e isrein forced as  na turalthr o ugh co rporat e spo ns ors h i p ofi n te lle ct uals likeD a wki ns an dPink er (eve n though if you re a d t hem both of
t hes e au t h or s w o rk s  ar ea gno s t ic on this poin t). Then h em ak es an uncl e arpo int abo ut howthe i n ternetchanges a ll that.
- ---- - ari helgason
T hat's wh y it's ca l led ' t he  dism alscienc e'  -the f irst t h ing  we w ere ta ug ht
inecono mi cs 101 a t university.

------
t homasp ainedup e <http:/ /ne w s.y combinato r.co m/item?id= 763 124 >

-- --- - 
dvva rf
y o ukno w , it' s fu n ny. mostp eo ple w ou ld put thes t a rtof ec ono m ic tho ught 
~1776 when AdamS mith wrote the  Wea l t h o f N a tion s.  That means it 'sbe e n  aroundle ss than 250  years.Su r e itmay no t desc ribe ph y s ic a l proc esse s,but
econo mic sd oes try  t om odel t he r ea l worl d. SCI E NCEw a sn't too far alo ng 25 0 years aft er in ce ption.I  mea n, we
 real_people with
real_purposes. That's why it's_so amazing_to_me that_scientists,_and people
calling themselves_scientists, would propose_to study the internet_as if it
were_some_natural system - like the weather, or a coral reef._

You can use science to_study_all sorts_of_systems,_ranging from the oceans to
the_internet to economics. They don't_have to_be natural.

All that matters is whether you apply_the_scientific method to_the phenomenon
you are studying. Many economists do this, so_(at least part of) the field_of
economics is scientific.

You_might_be_able to imagine another_world in which the laws of_economics
don't work. Ok, so what? You_can imagine worlds in which the laws_of physics
don't work, it doesn't make_physics unscientific.

------
reader5000
His point is not_what the_definition of'science' is. His thesis_is that in
the_late middle_ages society operated_on a'mutual credit system' (wikipedia
it) of_exchange where the_merchant classes were independently creating and
exchanging_value._This mutual credit_system_was_usurped for_a centralized
currency system_where_value creation_is_tightly controlled by the state (i.e.
in_the_form of loans of a monopolized currency;_what we have today).
Centralized_currency_discourages cooperation and forces_unnatural selfish
competition between individuals, to_the benefit of the corporate ownership.
This_unnatural state_is reinforced_as natural through corporate sponsorship of
intellectuals like Dawkins and Pinker (even_though if you read them both_of
these authors works are_agnostic on_this_point). Then he_makes_an unclear
point_about how the internet changes all that.

------
arihelgason
That's_why it's_called 'the dismal science' - the_first thing we were_taught
in_economics 101 at university.

------
thomaspaine
dupe <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=763124>

------
dvvarf
you know,_it's funny. most people would put_the start of economic thought
~1776_when_Adam_Smith wrote the Wealth of_Nations. That means it's been around
less_than 250 years._Sure it may not describe physical processes,_but
economics_does try to model the real_world._SCIENCE wasn't too far along 250
years_after_inception._I mean, we