Printable View
Basically shits on some dreadlocked stoner douche and proceeds to shut down any argument he could make before he even had a chance to present it. Lots of respect to this man, one of my favorite people to read and listen to regarding any issue.
[QUOTE]
Same goes for climate change and evolution deniers. Scientific consensus on those are also around 97% yet our culture of false equivalencies would have you think otherwise. People don't give a **** about facts anymore...everyone is an expert.
Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
They are in some cases: just look at how the federal reserve has bought the economics profession.
Not that this grants that whackjob any validity at all - the guy should be on the street corner selling pencils from a cup.
:hammerhead: [QUOTE=Dresta]They are in some cases: just look at how the federal reserve has bought the economics profession.
[/QUOTE]
:hammerhead:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc[/url]
Noam Chomsky is engaging in 2 fallacies:
1. He is contradicting himself when he is saying you should rely on the Scientific community and the educational department to dictate what the truth is. He has attacked both sectors [B][COLOR="Blue"]relentlessly[/COLOR][/B] in his philosophies before, so this position is from a position of a [B]contradiction.[/B]
2. He is sidetracking the question by not exactly explaining why it collasped in the first place. As a philosopher, he should have [B]at least [/B]a higher knowledge of [B]engineering and science than the best engineers in the country [/B]to answer the question outright.
Neg rep for Chomsky.
I think being a high target all these years and being harassed by the highest levels of government has made him soft. The young Chomsky wouldn't be so scared to give his honest opinion.
[QUOTE]2. He is sidetracking the question by not exactly explaining why it collasped in the first place. As a philosopher, he should have at least a higher knowledge of engineering and science than the best engineers in the country to answer the question outright.[/QUOTE]
That is why he didn't answer the question you fool. Also he is not a philosopher he is a linguist/activist. Sartre was a philosopher, Marx was a philosopher, Chomsky is not a philosopher. If you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures you would understand the difference very fast.
[QUOTE=Hazard]That is why he didn't answer the question you fool. Also he is not a philosopher he is a linguist/activist. Sartre was a philosopher, Marx was a philosopher, Chomsky is not a philosopher. If you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures you would understand the difference very fast.[/QUOTE]
Also this part is stupid.
[QUOTE]As a philosopher, he should have at least a higher knowledge of engineering and science than the best engineers in the country to answer the question outright.[/QUOTE]
I forgot, why did Al Qaeda attack us again?
Chomsky should know better.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]I forgot, why did Al Qaeda attack us again?[/QUOTE]
They thought we had WMD
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]:hammerhead:
:hammerhead:[/QUOTE]Nice response asshole. Despite your desire to act high-and-mighty, you really are one of the most childish and idiotic posters on here.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html[/url]
[url]http://econjwatch.org/articles/the-federal-reserve-system-s-influence-on-research-in-monetary-economics[/url]
'THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT ONLY THE SUBJECT OF research by American monetary economists it is also a major sponsor of their research. The Fed (the Board of Governors plus the twelve regional Reserve Banks) employed about 495 full-time staff economists in 2002. That year it engaged more than 120 leading academic economists as consultants and visiting scholars, and conducted some 30 conferences that brought 300-plus academics to the podium alongside its own staff economists. It published more than 230 articles in its own research periodicals. Judging by the abstracts compiled by the December 2002 issue of the e-JEL, some 74 percent of the articles on monetary policy published by US-based economists in US-edited journals appear in Fed-published journals or are co-authored by Fed staff economists.1 Over the past five years, slightly more than 30 percent of the articles by US-based economists published in the Journal of Monetary Economics had at least one Fed-based co-author. Slightly more than 80 percent had at least one co-author with a Fed affiliation (current or prior Fed employment including visiting scholar appointments) listed in an online vita. The corresponding percentages for the Journal of Money Credit and Banking were 39 percent and 75 percent. The editorial boards (editors and associate editors) of these journals are even more heavily weighted with Fed-affiliated economists (9 of 11, and 40 of 46, respectively).' (90+% of journal editors affiliated with fed :roll: - what an even-handed system we have)
Those who go against the grain in regard to the fed thus cannot get published, and ruin their careers by doing so.
Not to mention that there is a literature on how easily economists are bought by job security and prestige that stretches back 100 years.
Not an economist by any chance are we? Congrats on being one of the biggest wastes of space on the planet if so.
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
2. He is sidetracking the question by not exactly explaining why it collasped in the first place. As a philosopher, he should have [B]at least [/B]a higher knowledge of [B]engineering and science than the best engineers in the country [/B]to answer the question outright.
[/QUOTE]
So a philosopher should be more knowledgeable in the broad spectrum of engineering topics than engineers specializing in specific departments? Ok there. Definitely explains why there was a top tier of students in my engineering classes, they were philosophy majors in disguise.
[QUOTE=The Macho Man]:hammerhead: :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]
:coleman:
[QUOTE=Dresta]Nice response asshole. Despite your desire to act high-and-mighty, you really are one of the most childish and idiotic posters on here.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html[/url]
[url]http://econjwatch.org/articles/the-federal-reserve-system-s-influence-on-research-in-monetary-economics[/url]
'THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT ONLY THE SUBJECT OF research by American monetary economists it is also a major sponsor of their research. The Fed (the Board of Governors plus the twelve regional Reserve Banks) employed about 495 full-time staff economists in 2002. That year it engaged more than 120 leading academic economists as consultants and visiting scholars, and conducted some 30 conferences that brought 300-plus academics to the podium alongside its own staff economists. It published more than 230 articles in its own research periodicals. Judging by the abstracts compiled by the December 2002 issue of the e-JEL, some 74 percent of the articles on monetary policy published by US-based economists in US-edited journals appear in Fed-published journals or are co-authored by Fed staff economists.1 Over the past five years, slightly more than 30 percent of the articles by US-based economists published in the Journal of Monetary Economics had at least one Fed-based co-author. Slightly more than 80 percent had at least one co-author with a Fed affiliation (current or prior Fed employment including visiting scholar appointments) listed in an online vita. The corresponding percentages for the Journal of Money Credit and Banking were 39 percent and 75 percent. The editorial boards (editors and associate editors) of these journals are even more heavily weighted with Fed-affiliated economists (9 of 11, and 40 of 46, respectively).' (90+% of journal editors affiliated with fed :roll: - what an even-handed system we have)
Those who go against the grain in regard to the fed thus cannot get published, and ruin their careers by doing so.
Not to mention that there is a literature on how easily economists are bought by job security and prestige that stretches back 100 years.
Not an economist by any chance are we? Congrats on being one of the biggest wastes of space on the planet if so.[/QUOTE]
Nope, wasn't trying to act high and mighty. Your idea that "the federal reserve has bought the economics profession" doesn't deserve more than a childish response.
Name one economist whose career has been ruined. The triumph of Friedman-ism and the Chicago School of Economics went well beyond the FED. The FED followed this trend, it didn't force it. However look at the list of recent Noble Prize winners in Economics and you'll find several that instead of having their careers ruined, earned the highest honor in their profession by poking holes in the efficient market hypothesis.
Dresta does have a point that academia in macroeconomics has a pretty heavy status quo bias right now. Getting published can be difficult because you essentially have to be using one of the widely excepted models (mostly DSGE) in order to be taken seriously.
I don't blame any of that on the Fed tho.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcZHSGyos6g[/url]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Nope, wasn't trying to act high and mighty. Your idea that "the federal reserve has bought the economics profession" doesn't deserve more than a childish response.
[B]Name one economist whose career has been ruined.[/B] The triumph of Friedman-ism and the Chicago School of Economics went well beyond the FED. The FED followed this trend, it didn't force it. However look at the list of recent Noble Prize winners in Economics and you'll find several that instead of having their careers ruined, earned the highest honor in their profession by poking holes in the efficient market hypothesis.[/QUOTE]
All the ones that have been sidelined by the economics profession for having divergent opinions (i.e. they will never have come to prominence). I don't know why you're talking about the Chicago School and the efficient market hypothesis when that has nothing to do with what i was saying. Just because you are criticising that, does not mean you are criticising the Fed as an institution, and it is well known that criticising the Fed is a big no-no for any aspiring economist who hopes for a prestigious career. And this is a problem when the Fed is at the centre of the economic turmoil currently afflicting this country.
Having the entire editorial board of the Journal of Monetary Economics (very important publication for prestige) either being on the payroll or formerly on the payroll of the Fed is not exactly conducive to fundamental differences of opinion now, is it?
Hayek:
'“…The reason why I think that too deliberate striving for immediate usefulness is so likely to corrupt the intellectual integrity of the economist is that immediate usefulness depends almost entirely on influence, and influence is gained most easily by concessions to popular prejudice and adherence to existing political grounds. I seriously believe that any such striving for popularity–at least till you have very definitely settled your own convictions, is fatal to the economist and that above anything he must have the courage to be unpopular.
…I think as economists we should at least always suspect ourselves if we find that we are on the popular side. It is so much easier to believe pleasant conclusions, or to trace doctrines which others like to believe, to concur in the views which are held by most people of good will, and not to disillusion enthusiasts, that the temptation to accept which would not stand cold examination is sometimes almost irresistible.'
This is why the economics profession will never change from within and economists will continue to be a group of people incapable of predicting anything, that are laughed at even by the average man in the street. All the predictive models and statistical methods that are now used, and still the entire economics profession couldn't predict what was obvious to those who shun these crude tools. ****ing hilarious: no wonder they cannot admit their mistake: that would mean their whole lives thus far have been a sham and a waste of time.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
[QUOTE=ballup]So a philosopher should be more knowledgeable in the broad spectrum of engineering topics than engineers specializing in specific departments? Ok there. Definitely explains why there was a top tier of students in my engineering classes, they were philosophy majors in disguise.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Philosophy isn't as generic as you educational Scientists who believe expertise should only be restricted to one field of study. [B]THEY KNOW EVERYTHING.[/B] They live life to seek truths, so they are not doing it for monetary gain, but rather from passion and love.
[QUOTE=Hazard]That is why he didn't answer the question you fool. Also he is not a philosopher he is a linguist/activist. Sartre was a philosopher, Marx was a philosopher, Chomsky is not a philosopher. If you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures you would understand the difference very fast.[/QUOTE]
Shows how little you know about Philosophy when you can only name 2 mainstream philosophers anyone can name off the tip of their tongue. Not only is Chomsky consider a political philosopher, but "linguistic" has it's roots in philosophy starting with Frege and then touched on by Wittgenstein.
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Shows how little you know about Philosophy when you can only name 2 mainstream philosophers anyone can name off the tip of their tongue. Not only is Chomsky consider a [B]political philosopher[/B], but "linguistic" has it's roots in philosophy starting with Frege and then touched on by Wittgenstein.[/QUOTE]
Nah bro, they call it political 'science' these days.
:lol
Chomsky a scientist innit.
[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Dresta does have a point that academia in macroeconomics has a pretty heavy status quo bias right now. Getting published can be difficult because you essentially have to be using one of the widely excepted models (mostly DSGE) in order to be taken seriously.
I don't blame any of that on the Fed tho.[/QUOTE]
I think he is correct.
KevNYC is being exposed as nothing more than a parrot hack.
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Exactly.
Philosophy isn't as generic as you educational Scientists who believe expertise should only be restricted to one field of study. [B]THEY KNOW EVERYTHING.[/B] They live life to seek truths, so they are not doing it for monetary gain, but rather from passion and love.[/QUOTE]
lol wut? You saying that philosophers know all of civil, chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering, and all of their subdivisions? That some funny ass shit right there. :roll:
[QUOTE=ballup]lol wut? You saying that philosophers know all of civil, chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering, and all of their subdivisions? That some funny ass shit right there. :roll:[/QUOTE]
Um yea, they pretty much created every field of study you are studying in your mediocre education including the Science you pass off as the be all end all in truth.
[QUOTE=ballup]lol wut? You saying that philosophers know all of civil, chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering, and all of their subdivisions? That some funny ass shit right there. :roll:[/QUOTE]
Science is effectively natural philosophy.
Philosophy in its broadest sense does mean the study of all the fundamental elements of existence, and that includes the sciences, though perhaps not applicational sciences like engineering.
Though of course no one manages to know everything there is to know, philosophers don't strictly limit themselves to what is often called 'pure philosophy' (e.g metaphysics, epistemology etc.).
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
[B]KevNYC[/B] is being exposed as nothing more than a parrot hack.[/QUOTE]
I have a suspicion this guy is an economist - no wonder he is such a master of the straw man.
:lol :lol :lol
[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Dresta does have a point that academia in macroeconomics has a pretty heavy status quo bias right now. Getting published can be difficult because you essentially have to be using one of the widely excepted models (mostly DSGE) in order to be taken seriously.
[COLOR="Red"]I don't blame any of that on the Fed tho.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]I think he is correct.
KevNYC is being exposed as nothing more than a parrot hack.[/QUOTE]
You may want to read all the way to his last sentence because once again....
[IMG]http://31.media.tumblr.com/c61b6c4bfcf72506fb65fc4b56a0bbe2/tumblr_mmcwbufLmC1r5xzspo1_400.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]You may want to read all the way to his last sentence because once again you've missed the point.[/QUOTE]
You're straw-manning all over the place again...
Nothing about what was in that post contradicted the last sentence of Jailblazer's post. You need to seriously either learn to read or to stop making things up - you do this in almost every single post you make (even in bball threads you were doing this inane shit to me).
[QUOTE=Dresta]You're straw-manning all over the place again...
Nothing about what was in that post contradicted the last sentence of Jailblazer's post. You need to seriously either learn to read or to stop making things up - you do this in almost every single post you make (even in bball threads you were doing this inane shit to me).[/QUOTE]
I seriously don't know what you're talking about. The point of Jailblazers post was the status quo bias in academia is not a result of "The Fed." So how is that a straw man?
I also forgot we ever spoke in the bball forum. It's just a message board. You can let things go.
Also I'm a textile artist, not an economist.
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Um yea, they pretty much created every field of study you are studying in your mediocre education including the Science you pass off as the be all end all in truth.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if they created every field of study. Scientists advanced their respective fields and improved society's maximum understanding of physical phenomenon.
[QUOTE=Dresta]Science is effectively natural philosophy.
Philosophy in its broadest sense does mean the study of all the fundamental elements of existence, and that includes the sciences, though perhaps not applicational sciences like engineering.
Though of course no one manages to know everything there is to know, philosophers don't strictly limit themselves to what is often called 'pure philosophy' (e.g metaphysics, epistemology etc.).[/QUOTE]
Real scientists don't limit themselves to their own field of study either. All sciences have related topics and a good scientist will also study, casually or intensely, those topics.
For one to say that they know of specifics from all fields of study is dumb. A good philosopher or scientist, no a good person, should be knowledgeable in a variety of subjects. They should not however, make definitive statements or provide an uninformed opinion about a topic.
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Um yea, they pretty much created every field of study you are studying in your mediocre education including the Science you pass off as the be all end all in truth.[/QUOTE]
This is your problem. You are stuck in the 18th century. You think that because the sub branch of philosophy - natural philosophy is the precursor to modern science that all discoveries found under science are really discoveries of philosophy. No, science branched off from philosophy. Philosophy may have cultural influence on the thought process of scientists but it can't claim to already know what the scientist discovers - it can only claim (at best) that it pointed them in the right direction.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I seriously don't know what you're talking about. The point of Jailblazers post was the status quo bias in academia is not a result of "The Fed." So how is that a straw man?
I also forgot we ever spoke in the bball forum. It's just a message board. You can let things go.
Also I'm a textile artist, not an economist.[/QUOTE]
The point of Jailblazer's post was that i was partly correct in that he feels the economic profession has been bought, just by journal prestige not by the fed (to which i would reply: who lines the editorial boards of these journals? fed or ex-fed funded economists, that's who. You think they are gonna happily publish papers directly critical of the fed?). And Rambo replied to him 'i think he was right' - do you not see how that has nothing to do with that last sentence? He didn't say 'i think you are right' now, did he?
And seeing as you brought up Friedman, here he is in a 1993 letter:
'I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results.'
[QUOTE=Dresta]The point of Jailblazer's post was that i was partly correct in that he feels the economic profession has been bought, just by journal prestige [B]not by the fed [/B]([/QUOTE]
Exactly, the problem you describe exists, but not for the reasons you state, so he disagrees with your original point.
You said A because of B
He said, no A because of C.
[QUOTE] And Rambo replied to him 'i think he was right' - do you not see how that has nothing to do with that last sentence? [B]He didn't say 'i think you are right' now, did he?[/B][/QUOTE]God forbid.
Rambo also missed the point that JB was saying A because of C.
[QUOTE=Dresta]'I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results.'[/QUOTE]
500 economists does not equal the economics profession.
Nobody missed 'C' - that is just another construct of your facile imagination.