-
>Economics has become more decentralized as a science. No offense, but it sounds like behavioral economics is more of an art. I'm guessing there are no fixed relations, apodictic theorems, or universal constants in behavioral economics. Facts would vary with the period in time and geographical region, for example. >whole thesis here is that
-
No one mentioned it so far, but Neodoxy's non-cheap shrimp sounds something like a Veblen good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good >Through behavioral economics we can get a better grasp on how individuals in general will act under certain situations I am not too familiar with behavioral economics. Is there a "bible" on behavioral
-
>praxeology is actually pretty useless to the investor and entrepreneur by its very nature Neodoxy, why not let the market decide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Koch - "As of October 2012, Charles was ranked the 6th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of $34 billion... In the book, Koch attempts to apply... Austrian
-
>Others here have university degrees and think that geology is based on a priori axioms. They think they are providing links to prove this. Derp. Seriously, learn to use the intertubes dude. "The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition Who said I have a
-
>They are guesses. And they are not a priori. No; in geology, they are axioms or a priori principles. Follow the links I gave. >>But I don't think that disclaimer is quite strong enough. >You are entitled to your unproven opinion, of course. The onus is on you to prove that you can predict the future with praxeology. Not me. And if the
-
>The reason I assume that humans can do things that God can't is because if this wasn't true, there would be no reason for the existance of humans. A sadder possibility is that the universe is some giant computer, perhaps a quantum computer, performing some calculation. The humans that evolve along the way are unwanted artifacts - parasites
-
>Has anyone applied praxeology when it comes to God. " But in elaborating these ideas the philosophers failed to see that a concept of deity that implies an acting God, that is, a God behaving in the way man behaves in acting, is self-contradictory... But for an almighty supreme being there cannot be any dissatisfaction with the prevailing state
-
>The point of the comparison is that the natural sciences are very famous for their ability to make predictions True, but they have their limits too: the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics, the inability to cope with chaos in N-body systems, the intractable calculations of quantum chromodynamics, the divergences that plague quantum field theory
-
>To predic the future and tell peoplewhat to do about it seems insane. Pretty much. The theorems of catallactics are generally of a ceteris paribus ("other things being equal") nature. Thus they can work for an infinitesimal time span, but any longer than that, and they don't apply and can ostensibly fail. I think a good analogy is
-
>Either give a reasoned "why" as to why X is wrong in murdering him or admit that you have no reason. I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong" here. It is unjustifiable and you caused a performative contradiction. You were arguing that murder could be justified, while the means you chose (argumentation) presupposes self-ownership