4 ms·
It's good to hear this argument once in a while - and I think it deserves to be extended to most things that are not formal figments of human thought. In other
by caffeine 17y ago
It's good to hear this argument once in a while - and I think it deserves to be extended to most things that are not formal figments of human thought.
In other words - can someone please forward this to the humanities department? Tell them it's OK to stop formalizing literature, politics, ethics, and the other messy fields of human endeavour. It turns out that things change regularly and generally applicable advice is much more helpful than obscure formalism founded on obsolete assumptions.
(Also: To those who say the above goes double for the economists: take it easy on the economists. They do get real results, it does work (mostly) - but realize their job is much more difficult than, say, that of physicists.
Physicists have merely to understand and model the crazy phenomena that make up our world. They are lucky in that these phenomena tend to co-operate by not changing very often. For the economists, things are not so easy - so take pity on them.)
- erikwiffin 17y agoreminds me of a joke: a farmer has a bunch of chickens that aren't laying eggs, so he asks a physicist for help. the physicist leaves, does some calculations, etc etc, and comes back with the following answer. "well I've solved your problem, but it only works for spherical eggs in a void" I'm sure that economists have much the same issue. All of their theories work just fine with rational humans in a vacuum.