funkless_eck comments on Economic "science"

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have a big, mostly tongue-in-cheek, interest in old spiritualism - Crowley, Rider-Waite, Golden Dawn, alchemy, Eteilla... - i don't think any of it is "real" but boy howdy can they write screeds on the relationship of quartz to the smell of petrichor, or exactly why going "shh" is a sacred act of the Egyptian diety Hoor-pa-Kraat

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] gaybriel_fr_br@jlai.lu -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Alright. But you're equating complexity to veracity. That's just incredibly untrue.

Economics might seem like bollocks if you have a surface-level understanding of it. But the study itself uses the scientific method all the way through.

It doesn't start from assumptions, and doesn't treat its hypotheses as tenets.

It's all just experimental through quantitative/qualitative data, as well as empirical.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

no I'm equating complexity of apparatus to individual effort of understanding the complexity.

Understanding a complex system has no bearing on the application of the complex system.

Understanding how the Linux kernel works would be no help in beet farming, that doesn't mean either endeavor is entirely worthless in context.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent