tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post608452449631645188..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Great comments on scienceEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11007614968118051072011-12-08T12:42:24.832-05:002011-12-08T12:42:24.832-05:00I felt a twinge of conscience in writing "sof...I felt a twinge of conscience in writing "soft science." I apologize for the term which really does no credit to the difficulty of a conceptual science like economics.<br /><br />You know what else is odd, though? The phrase "rest on your laurels." As it comes from the ancient Roman tradition of placing a crown of laurels on the head of a victorious campaign general, but the phrase implies sitting on the laurels. This could be the result of translation and re-translation over the ages, I suppose.Edwin Herdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040978095707760636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13311222902308781502011-12-08T07:46:15.041-05:002011-12-08T07:46:15.041-05:00Gene I don't see how Lawson vindicates "t...Gene I don't see how Lawson vindicates "that view". Perhaps you need to be more specific about what "that view" is.<br /><br />I certainly think social sciences are fundamentally different from physics and chemistry for this reason and for other reasons as well.<br /><br />I think that point is quite obvious, but it doesn't justify or vindicate dismissing (say) mainstream macro as scientism, which is the view of Hayek's that's been tossed around lately.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-21622535183648302632011-12-07T16:44:06.830-05:002011-12-07T16:44:06.830-05:00Gene,
This is where non-reductive materialism rea...Gene,<br /><br />This is where non-reductive materialism really gets interesting. Even if the universe is ultimately just physical, there are still unpredictable sciences and unknowable concepts.Mattheus von Guttenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404889240800715511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-21776260530413756072011-12-07T09:06:42.387-05:002011-12-07T09:06:42.387-05:00"We really shouldn't praise Hayek for the..."We really shouldn't praise Hayek for the scientism stuff..."<br /><br />Tony Lawson at Cambridge (who is *not* an Austrian, btw) offers the following three-line vindication of that view:<br /><br />1) Humans beings learn;<br />2) We can't possibly predict what it is they will learn, or we would have already learned it; therefore<br />3) The social sciences are fundamentally different than physics and chemistry, in which the subjects of the science do not learn.<br /><br />Knock-down argument.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.com