3 ms·
nor is it particularly astute to create an entire discipline used to justify our entire social order on a theory that is known at the onset to be incorrect, all
by cat199 9y ago
nor is it particularly astute to create an entire discipline used to justify our entire social order on a theory that is known at the onset to be incorrect, all the while claiming it is more 'rational' and less 'superstitious' than the ones that came before it..
- dsacco 9y agoWhich theory specifically is used to "justify our entire social order"? How do we know it's incorrect, and what are the criteria for a successful theory?
- alexandercrohde 9y agoWell, I don't intend to defend the blanket phrasing of GP, let's take for example GDP and it being taken seriously as a measure of a country's progress. I would wager just about any undergrad could come up with a superior measure to GDP.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cat199 9y agothe bold new idea of GDP/capita, perhaps.. hmm.
- cat199 9y agorational free market theory; humanistic positivism, etc. in the case of rational free market theory, even OP pointed out the logical problems inherent in this theory, i shan't repeat here since it doesn't deviate from the thread
- geezerjay 9y ago> nor is it particularly astute to create an entire discipline used to justify our entire social order on a theory that is known at the onset to be incorrect, This is precisely what makes your line of argument tiresome: you fail to understand the very basics of what models are and how they are used. What determines if a model is valid or not is its error margin for the intended use. Even if a model fails to draw accurate predictions, its ability to express cause-effect consequences is enough to demonstrate the model's usefulness. It makes absolutely no sense at all, and flies in the face of reason, to criticize a model because it might not be very accurate at representing a corner case. That's a very ignorant thing to claim. To paraphrase George Box: "All models are wrong but some are useful". It seems you failed to understand the latter.
- cat199 9y ago> This is precisely what makes your line of argument tiresome: you fail to understand the very basics of what models are and how they are used. no, this is precisely what makes your line of argument argument tiresome - choosing one inherently biased and flawed model over another because you prefer the way that the biases look.. and actually I wasn't "arguing" for/against anything - but pointing out logical inconsistencies in an already occurring exchange..