Noam Chomsky on building 7

[KevinNYC]

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).

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.

[ballup]

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.

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.

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.).

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.

[miller-time]

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.

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.

[Dresta]

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.

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.'

[KevinNYC]

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 (

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.

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?

God forbid.

Rambo also missed the point that JB was saying A because of C.

'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.'

500 economists does not equal the economics profession.

[Dresta]

Nobody missed 'C' - that is just another construct of your facile imagination.