Academe vs. Reality

[uniface]

Several people here have been annoyed by my insisting that, outside the hard sciences, the consensus of scholarly opinion is all but worthless in many cases, since scholarly opinion itself is manifestly worthless. This being the case, although it probably provides people inclined to it with recreation, citing sources and footnoting references is busywork of no value whatever in support of an idea.

Rather than belabor this as an abstract proposition, here is an excellent summation of the utter, demonstrated inability of economic theory to meaningfully comprehend or address economic practice over the last 30 years.

And this is about money -- which people do take very seriously indeed.

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/i- ... rofession/

[Johnny]

So you mean to tell me that I'm about to drop a hundred grand to acquire a PhD and will end up just as worthless and disreputable as I am today?

Suckin.

[Digit]

Several people here have been annoyed by my insisting that, outside the hard sciences, the consensus of scholarly opinion is all but worthless in many cases, since scholarly opinion itself is manifestly worthless.

No Uni! I get annoyed 'cos you state your opinions as being fact! Never an item of evidence in support.
You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, but they remain that. Opinions!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

And this is about money -- which people do take very seriously indeed.

Indeed....even Allen Greenspan admitted that he gave far too much credit to banks being able to regulate themselves. People will steal money at every opportunity and invent new means to do so.

I don't know if economists can be blamed for not out-guessing the crooks.

In any case, what do you propose as a replacement?

[Digit]

In any case, what do you propose as a replacement?

Which immedeately raises the point I have made time and again! In the past Uni has NEVER explained.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I thought I'd try asking.


(You've done enough.)

[uniface]

Ignoring the self-evident is poor procedure.

Self-evident : that honest and decent people keep the whole network of interaction spheres going.

Also self-evident : that when dishonest people are given free rein through legal fictions, their effect on everybody is negentropic.

Dig wants "proof."

Clinton wanted "is" defined.

Both are, to my mind, rearguard strategies.

Kung Tse : Only with the decline of Tao does one hear praise of loyal ministers and dutiful children. Had the people retained the integrity they were born with, sound character would be normal. No one would comment on it, because it wouldn't attract attention by being exceptional.

The problem with systems of ethics/morality is that they assume evil is a "given" and work from there.

But evil is not the normal human condition. When it is, as today, with every medium of influence promoting some evasion of the obligation to recognise deviancy for what it is (and treat it accordingly), engaging it on its own terms is an exercise in futility.

Psychology wants to understand human nature (so it can be manipulated for profit) while denying that intelligence and temperment are largely influenced by genetics.

Economics wants to understand market outcomes, but not acknowledge that these are rigged.

Archaeology wants to reconstruct the prehistory of the USA -- so long as there was no one here before Clovis.

The Medical profession wants to improve peoples' wellbeing by inventing new diseases and syndromes tailored to facilitate the prescription and sale of highly profitable proprietary drugs which supposedly cure them, while driving competing therapies out of existence.

Everything important is obvious. Or would be if people would stop preferring systems that institutionalise dishonesty to the alternative.

Fresh air and sunlight are the best disinfectants.

(Yeah -- I know. This perspective doesn't exist. Because it cannot be arrived-at through the "accepted" procedures and assumptions that perpetuate the problem itself).

[Digit]

Both are, to my mind, rearguard strategies.

Requiring proof is a rearguard strategy? King Arthur was my aunt Nelly's left handed footman, three times removed. You will accept that of course simply because I say so, won't you?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

That sort of reminded me of James Joyce.

[uniface]

Big Pictures are not meaningfully addressed at the pixel level.

[Digit]

Big Pictures are not meaningfully addressed at the pixel level.

If 'ifs and and were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers!'

Roy.