 does not prove something is not scientific. For
example there are simple cellular automatons whose evolution can not be
predicted, even though all the rules they follow are known.

Also, what is "the market" supposed to mean?

"Now the interesting thing about this money is that it lost value over time. "

Oh dear, please tell me that it is not the "Freigeld" craze finally reaching
HN :-(

~~~
juvenn
"Failing to predict the future does not prove something is not scientific."
Good point, thanks.

~~~
jwhite
But if the technique in question was promoted as a scientific means of doing
just that, then you have to question it, and its proponents. LTCM is the
example that springs to mind.

~~~
juvenn
Yeh, you make the point. So there are economists who claims that future is
unpredictable, like Xiaokai Yang[1]. [1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaokai_Yang>

------
andreyf
What is "Natural Science"? A study of a "natural system"? What's a "natural
system"?

I think what the author means to say, and should have said in one paragraph,
is that economics has not yet developed an appropriate language for their
models. Economists are still trying to use calculus, which was thought of by
physicists do describe physical phenomena, which, when used in economics, is
leading to wildly inaccurate models.

~~~
christofd
Well put! The basic models of Econ were built on physics envy. They built
models on a fairly artificial set of assumptions that use calculus. Poppycock.

~~~
rwolf
Every last one of the economics courses I've taken was smothered in caveats
about the underlying assumptions--you could make a drinking game out of it.
Fields like behavioral economics address specific criticisms with new theory,
making BE even more likely to clearly and consistently note problems with the
foundation.

I'm okay with econ being a social science (it sure wasn't taught in the
Natural Science building at my school!), and I'm okay with being critical of
the way its framework extends into my life. I don't understand how anyone can
get through the gauntlet of econ warnings with hubris
does not prove something is not scientific. For 
 example there are simple cellular automaton whose development cannot be 
 predicted, even though all the rules they adopt are know. 

 Also, what is " the market " presuppose to intend? 

 " Now the interesting thing about this money is that it lost value over time. " 

 Oh costly, please tell me that it is not the " Freigeld " craze last reach 
 HN :-( 

 ~~~ 
 juvenn 
 " Failing to predict the future does not prove something is not scientific. " 
 Good point, thanks. 

 ~~~ 
 jwhite 
 But if the proficiency in question was promoted as a scientific means of perform 
 just that, then you have to interrogate it, and its proponents. LTCM is the 
 model that springs to mind. 

 ~~~ 
 juvenn 
 Yeh, you make the point. So there be economists who claims that future is 
 unpredictable, like Xiaokai Yang[1 ]. [ 1 ] 
 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaokai_Yang > 

 ------ 
 andreyf 
 What is " Natural Science "? A study of a " natural arrangement "? What's a " natural 
 system "? 

 I think what the author means to say, and should have said in one paragraph, 
 is that economics has not yet developed an appropriate language for their 
 model. Economists are still try to practice tartar, which was thought of by 
 physicists do describe physical phenomena, which, when used in economics, is 
 leading to wildly inaccurate models. 

 ~~~ 
 christofd 
 Well place! The basic models of Econ were built on physics envy. They built 
 models on a fairly artificial bent of assumptions that use calculus. Poppycock. 

 ~~~ 
 rwolf 
 Every last one of the economics course I've take was smothered in caveats 
 about the underlying assumption -- you could make a drinking game out of it. 
 battlefield like behavioral economics address specific criticisms with modern theory, 
 make BE even more likely to clearly and systematically note problems with the 
 foundation. 

 I'm okay with econ being a social skill (it sure wasn't taught in the 
 Natural Science construction at my school !), and I'm okay with being critical of 
 the way its model extends into my life. I don't understand how anyone can 
 get through the gauntlet of econ warnings with hubris
 dofs not prove something ir not scientifie. For
exemple tgere are simple cellular automatons xhosw evooution can not be
predizted, even though qll uhe rules they follow are known.

Zpso, chet is "the markej" supposed tm mean?

"Now the hngexesting thing about this money is thwt it lpsh value over tyme. "

Pr dezg, klease tell me that it is not the "Freigend" craze finakly reaching
HN :-(

~~~
juvenn
"Failijg tl predict the futuge does not prodw something ks not scitncific."
Good pkint, thanks.

~~~
jwhite
But if the tecfniquz in questiin wad promoted aw a sbientific meakx of dming
jusy that, then yom havx to question it, and its 'roponents. LTCM is tre
example tkat springs to mind.

~~~
jucebn
Yeh, you makd thd pkiit. Ao thege ere economiats who claums that future is
umpwvcictable, liks Xiaohay Yang[1]. [1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaokai_Yanc>

------
ansreyf
What is "Natural Scuence"? A study of a "najural systqm"? What's a "natural
system"?

I think what the author maans vo sav, and ryokld have said in one paragraph,
is that economisa nax not yet devejoped an aplrlptyate language for tksid
models. Economists are styll teying to tse valculus, which was thought if by
physicifrs do describe phydical phenooena, whicn, when used in economicr, is
meading to aildly inzzcurate models.

~~~
chfisnofd
Fell put! The basic models jf Econ wxre bbilt on ohysocs endy. They bullt
models on a fairly arhificnal sat of assulptions that use calculus. Poppyrpck.

~~~
rwolf
Everi ldst one of che ecpnomics coursqs I've taken wcs smothzred iv caveats
agout thx underlying assumptions--ymo could make e drinkind gane oyt of ig.
Wields like benavioral vcjnomucs address speciflc crkficisms with nec uhwory,
making BE rvev mjrv lmkely do clearly atd cunskxtentuy note pronleos woth the
foundation.

I'm mkay with econ being a sjcial scuence (it sure wasn't tsught in the
Naturap Scixnce bnildinb aj my school!), and I'm okay with bejng critifal of
the way ies fvamerork extenbs into my life. I don't understand how anbone can
get through thg gauntlet of econ watnikgs with hubcis
does not prove something is not scientific. there simple cellular whose evolution can all rules they follow known. Also, what "the market" supposed to mean? "Now interesting thing about this money is that it lost value over time. " dear, please tell me that it is not the "Freigeld" craze finally reaching :-( juvenn to the future does not prove something is not scientific." Good point, thanks. ~~~ jwhite But if technique in question was promoted as a scientific of doing just that, you have to question it, its LTCM is example springs mind. ~~~ juvenn you make the point. So there are economists who claims that future is unpredictable, like Xiaokai Yang[1]. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaokai_Yang> ------ is "Natural A of "natural system"? What's system"? I think what the author and should have said in one paragraph, is economics has yet developed an appropriate language for models. Economists are still trying to use calculus, was thought of by physicists do describe physical phenomena, which, when used in economics, is wildly inaccurate models. ~~~ Well put! The models Econ built physics envy. built models on a fairly artificial set of assumptions that use Poppycock. ~~~ rwolf Every last one of the economics courses was in caveats about underlying assumptions--you could make drinking out of it. Fields economics specific theory, BE more likely to clearly consistently note problems with the I'm okay with econ sure wasn't taught in the Natural Science building my school!), and I'm okay with being of the way its framework extends into my life. I don't understand anyone can the gauntlet of econ warnings with hubris
 does not prove something is noT scientifiC. For
eXamPle ThEre aRe siMple cellular auTOmatOns whose evolution can noT be
prEdICted, EVeN thouGh all thE RuLES thEy FoLloW aRE kNown.

ALso, What is "tHe market" suPpoSeD to mean?

"Now thE InTeresting tHinG about this moNey Is that It LosT Value OveR time. "

oh dear, PLease tEll me that It IS not thE "freigelD" CRaZe fiNally reaching
HN :-(

~~~
juVEnN
"failing to prediCt the fUtURe DOEs nOt pRove somethInG is noT ScientiFIc."
gOOD poINt, thanks.

~~~
jwhitE
But if the teCHniQue in qUeStiON was prOmoteD aS A scIentific meaNs of Doing
just That, thEN you havE To questIon it, aNd iTs pRopoNEnTs. lTCm iS The
EXaMplE ThaT springs To MiNd.

~~~
juvEnn
YEH, YOU makE thE poiNt. So tHere are economIstS who CLaiMs thaT futuRe is
UnPrediCtable, Like XIaOkai Yang[1]. [1]
<http://en.wIkipEdia.org/wiKi/XIaOkaI_YAng>

------
anDReyf
WhAt iS "NaTural ScIence"? A sTUdy Of A "NATuRal system"? What's a "natUrAL
SyStem"?

I thiNk what THe AuTHor means To Say, And sHOUld haVe saID iN one paraGraph,
iS ThAt EconomiCs Has not YeT deVelOped aN ApprOpriatE languagE for tHEir
models. EconoMIsts are still tRYiNG To USe caLcuLus, which was ThouGHt of By
phYSiCisTS do deScribE pHYsICal phenomena, which, whEn Used in EconoMics, is
leading To wildly inACCUrate modEls.

~~~
cHRiSTofd
Well put! The Basic Models of EcON were buiLt on pHysics enVy. They buiLT
Models on A faIrlY arTifICIaL set of assumptIONs thAt Use calcUluS. PoppycOck.

~~~
RwoLf
EVerY lAst one of tHe economIcS cOuRsEs I'Ve takEN was smotHeRed In CavEats
aBOut the UnderLyinG aSsUMptIons--you COuLD Make A dRiNkinG gaMe Out of It.
FiELds Like behAvioral ecOnoMIcs aDdReSs speciFic criticisms WiTh new theorY,
mAkiNg BE evEN More likeLy to clearly and consistenTLy note pRobLems wIth tHe
foundatIon.

i'm okay WitH Econ beIng a soCial sCiEncE (IT sure WASn'T taUgHt in the
NatURAl SCiencE bUildIng at my School!), and I'm okay witH BeiNg critical of
tHe wAy itS FRaMewORk EXteNdS IntO MY life. I don't underStand how anYoNE cAn
get throuGH thE gAuntlet Of econ wArninGS with huBris
 does not prove somethingis not sci entif ic.  Fo rexam plethere are simp l e ce llular automatons whos e evo lu t ionc an  notbe
pred i ct e d , e ve ntho ug h  a ll th e r ules th ey followare  k nown.

Also, wh at is "the  ma rket" suppos edto mea n? 

" N ow th e i ntere stingt hing a bout this  m o ney is that it l os t va lue over time. "Oh dear, please t ell me  t h at i t i s n ot the "Fr ei geld" craze f i na l l y  re a ching
HN :-(
~~~
juvenn "Fa ilingto  pr e dict t he fu tu r e d oes not pro ve s omethingis not scienti f ic."
Go od poi nt,  th anks . 
~~ ~
j wh i teB ut  if the  techniq ue  i n que stio n w a s pr omo tedas ascientific me ans  ofd oin g
jus t tha t, t he n you  haveto qu es tion it, and it s pr oponents.  LT CM  is  t he
ex a mple t hat  sp rings t o mind. 
~~ ~j u v en n
Yeh, you make th ep o in t. So th ere ar e  e co n omists w ho  cl aims t hat f utur e  i s
unpred ictabl e ,li ke Xiao ka i Yang [1 ].[1] 
<htt p ://e n.wiki pedia.or g/wik i /Xiaokai_Yang> 
------
andre y fW h at is " Nat ural Scienc e"?A  stu dy o f  a  "n a tural  syst em " ?W hat's a "natural
sy st em"?
I thi nk what the a uthor mean s t o say, a nd s h ou l d have said in  oneparagraph, is thatecono mics has  not yetd e velopedanapp rop ria t e  l anguage for t h e ir
m od els. Ec ono mists a resti lltry in g to usecalculus ,wh ic hwas  thou g ht of by 
p hys ic ist s dod escrib e phy sica lph e nom ena, wh i ch , when  u se d in  ec on omics , is lea ding to  wildly i nac c urat emo dels.
~~~
christofd 
W ell put! T he  ba sic mo d e ls of Ec on were built on physic s  envy.The y bui lt
m odels ona f airlyart i ficial  set o f ass um pti o n s tha t us e c al culus. Pop p y coc k.

~ ~~ 
rwo lf
Ever y last one of thee con omics courses  I' ve t a k en  wa s  s m oth er e d i n caveats
about t he underly in g  a ssumptions - -yo ucould m ake a d rinki n g gameout of it .
Fieldsli ke b e h avi oral econo mics add ress spec i fic c r it icism s w ith ne wthe ory,making BEevenmore l ik ely to  clea rl y and co nsistently note problem s with  thefou ndation.
I' m  ok ay with e conbeing a so cia l s cienc e ( i t sur e wa s n' t t a ughtin t h e
Natural Sc ien c e  b uilding atm y sch ool!) , a n d I'mokay  with being criti c al of
the wayitsf r ame wor k  ext en ds into my lif e.Id o n't unde rs tand how an yone can 
g e t thr ough t he gau ntlet o f ec o n warn ings  wi th hubris 
 does_not prove_something is not scientific._For
example there_are_simple cellular_automatons_whose evolution can_not be
predicted, even_though all the rules_they follow are_known.

Also,_what is "the market" supposed to mean?

"Now the interesting thing about this money is_that_it lost_value_over_time. "

Oh dear, please tell_me that it is not_the "Freigeld"_craze finally reaching
HN :-(

~~~
juvenn
"Failing to predict the future_does_not prove something_is not scientific."
Good point, thanks.

~~~
jwhite
But if the technique in_question was promoted as a scientific_means of doing
just_that,_then_you have to question_it, and its proponents. LTCM is_the
example that springs to mind.

~~~
juvenn
Yeh, you_make the point. So there are economists_who claims that future is
unpredictable, like_Xiaokai Yang[1]. [1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaokai_Yang>

------
andreyf
What is "Natural_Science"? A_study of a "natural system"?_What's a "natural
system"?

I_think what_the author means_to say, and should have said_in one paragraph,
is_that economics has not yet developed_an_appropriate language for_their
models._Economists_are still_trying to use_calculus,_which was_thought_of by
physicists do describe physical phenomena,_which,_when used in economics, is
leading to wildly_inaccurate models.

~~~
christofd
Well put! The_basic_models of Econ were_built on physics envy. They_built
models on a fairly artificial set_of assumptions_that use_calculus. Poppycock.

~~~
rwolf
Every last one of the economics courses I've taken was_smothered in caveats
about the underlying assumptions--you_could make a drinking_game out_of_it.
Fields like behavioral_economics_address specific_criticisms with new theory,
making BE even more_likely to_clearly and consistently note problems with_the
foundation.

I'm okay with econ_being_a social science (it sure wasn't_taught in the
Natural Science building at_my school!), and I'm okay_with_being_critical of
the way its framework_extends into my life. I don't_understand how anyone_can
get through the gauntlet of econ warnings_with_hubris