Political Theory

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

Sieben — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:02:38 GMT

I think the OP is saying that if someone is doing a job, they're working to make it so the job no longer needs doing. I.e. that math teachers are doing math untill no more math needs doing. Its not likely to happen anytime in the near future but conceivably capital investment by math-people might bring down labor requirements enough to unemploy virtually all math teachers.

Its like Walter Block says - the free market is a race to end all profit.

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

hayekianxyz — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:57:46 GMT

Hayekianxyz, why do you say that?

Because LvMI fellows work for a private institution, so it's only natural that they'd defend private institutions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a very persuasive argument, and I don't wish to challenge the sincerity of the LvMI fellows for a second. In fact, what I'm saying is that I don't think this is a very persuasive argument at all.

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:00:39 GMT

Listening to lectures by the typical blockhead economist always gives me the impression that they try to think of every insignificant tidbit to "study", however useless and unfascinating, all to maintain the illusion that there is good reason for their continuous employment. As it is with the natural sciences, where no cranny is left unsurveyed by expedition and no stone left materialized in search of every last minute possibility for grant application.

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

ricarpe — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:16:20 GMT

Would you say that a good benchmark for measuring someone’s dedication to truth is the fact that they wish to unemployee themselves?

I don't understand this question. Could you rephrase or elaborate a little more?

For example, there is really no need for an economist in a free market nor a psychologist without mental illness, etc for the hard sciences.

A free market does not make economists obsolete. So long as people act, someone will want to study those actions, why they took place, what was the thought process and planning behind it, what information the actor(s) had that other did not at the time the action was taken, etc. Unless we all go comatose, there will still be human action to study.

Likewise, psychologists will not go out of business any time soon, but for the sake of argument should all of humanity decide to hug and play together nicely, you will still have people who study that interaction.

Economics and psychology are not "hard" sciences. The social sciences and humanities deal with subjective valuation: whether that is an economist studying the actions of a businessman or investor, or a psychologist studying the actions of a spouse abuser or alcoholic. There will never be a lack of human action to study.

Wouldn’t this rightfully mean that non free market economists should rightfully change their title? To state-efficiency pushers or econ-statisticians?

They can keep their titles. Their beliefs and persistance in those beliefs allow others to categorize them into the different schools of thought within the science of economics.

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

DanielMuff — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:40:16 GMT

Hayekianxyz, why do you say that?

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

hayekianxyz — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:35:30 GMT

Would you say that a good benchmark for measuring someone’s dedication to truth is the fact that they wish to unemployee themselves?

Sure, but only if you're willing to extend this to LvMI faculty.

Re: Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

scineram — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:32:27 GMT

They

Measuring the purity of a science practitioner

Jeremiah Dyke — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:07:47 GMT

Would you say that a good benchmark for measuring someone’s dedication to truth is the fact that they wish to unemployee themselves? For example, there is really no need for an economist in a free market nor a psychologist without mental illness, etc for the hard sciences. Wouldn’t this rightfully mean that non free market economists should rightfully change their title? To state-efficiency pushers or econ-statisticians?