3 ms·
> If you can't precisely define what exactly Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? In economic
by qwytw 4y ago
> If you can't precisely define what exactly
Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone?
In economics for instance if you try to achieve this you can often end with an oversimplified model which mostly pointless and not particularly useful unless you're writing a schoolbook for undergraduates.
In a way it might be closer to medicine than to more exact sciences (just with no way to directly test your hypothesis...). You're analyzing a very complex dynamic system with many unknown or not easily definable or measurable variables. Even if you manage to come up with a model which makes sense it might be suddenly become nearly useless when something unpredicted in that system changes.
> that they can think in a different way that STEM people can't
Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences.
- worrycue 4y ago> Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? Don't see why we can't have multiple mutually exclusive definitions, as long as they are clearly defined, then we can have different lines of argument - kind of like with geometry and the parallel postulate; and which one reality matches is a separate issue we can independently investigate. > Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences. I'm curious as to exactly how the thinking is different. An example would be nice.