Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
The full title of this thread should be as follows: ECONOMICS--Is it a science? In what way does it help us understand the creation, nature and function of money?

STEWARDSHIP, ECONOMICS, ECOLOGY and the like
All my life, I have been interested in what the Bible calls "stewardship" (The NT Greek word is 'oikonomos'--manager of the house) and what the secular world calls 'economics'. I have searched this forum and I have found no thread dealing with the topic I propose.

This poses such questions as: Is 'economics' a science? Or is it a not-quite-science? How does the way we do economics affect our ecology. Is there a theology of economics? What do the scriptures of the great religions say about economics? What are your questions?

.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Rev,

IMHO Economics is ART.

Otherwise statisticians would be the richest academics in the world.

Blacknad.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Do we have any such "artists" in this forum, I wonder? Has anyone posted on the topic?

If it is an art, this leaves the door open to anyone brave enough to attempt to write about it.

I suppose, in one way or another, each of us has to practice the art of economics. Perhaps this why, growing up under third-world conditions, I have been interested in economics since as long as I can remember.

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/05/07 09:43 PM.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Or perhaps everyone courteous enough not to be a troll.

A category in which you, alas, seem not to either qualify or care.

I've thought many things of clergymen before. But never once intentionally rude. You have added a new dimension to a lack of civility.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I WOULD LIKE 'RUDE' DEFINED, PLEASE
If the moderators, posters and lurkers agree with DAM, not wanting to be rude, I am out of here. Or should that be 'rustic'?
In his elegy, Thomas Gray writes of the "rude (meaning rustic) forefathers"?

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/05/07 10:49 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I dispute that economics is the same thing as what the bible calls stewardship.

Yes, economics - the real economics - is science. It has it's own methods and laws. Just like in applied physics or applied physics, though, non-linear problems are not handled so well by the existing models.

There is at least one very highly mathematical in economics - cost analysis. Look up "linear programming" in google. Regardless of whether economics is science, "stewardship" is not.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"I dispute that economics is the same thing as what the bible calls stewardship" Writes TFF.

Go ahead, dispute it.

All I said was: OIKONOMOS--sounds like economics, to me--is the NT Greek for 'steward'. Stewards were and are 'managers' of things. What else can I say?

BTW, Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) the founder of modern economics was a very devlout Christian.



G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
IFF wrote:
"I dispute that economics is the same thing as what the bible calls stewardship."

revlgking replied:
"Go ahead, dispute it."

Well there's an intelligent well reasoned reply. Sort of the mental equivalent of sticking your tongue out at someone and saying Nya nya nya.

revlgking wrote:
"the founder of modern economics was a very devlout Christian."

A devout lout? Another new word eh? Fancy!

I know you are a lonely old troll ... but this is a science forum. What is the relevance of whether the guys was Jesus Christ incarnate to anyone other than his mother?

Haven't you anything better to do than proselytize?


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
FOR A BRIEF BIO OF ADAM SMITH, CHECK OUT
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html

From it I quote:
Quote:
Today Smith's reputation rests on his explanation of how rational self-interest in a free-market economy leads to economic well-being. It may surprise those who would discount Smith as an advocate of ruthless individualism that his first major work concentrated on ethics and charity.

In fact, while chair at the University of Glasgow, Smith's lecture subjects, in order of preference, were natural theology, ethics, jurisprudence, and economics, according to John Millar, Smith's pupil at the time.

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith wrote: "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."

At the same time, Smith had a benign view of self-interest. He denied the view that self-love "was a principle which could never be virtuous in any degree." Smith argued that life would be tough if our "affections, which, by the very nature of our being, ought frequently to influence our conduct, could upon no occasion appear virtuous, or deserve esteem and commendation from anybody."

To Smith sympathy and self-interest were not antithetical; they were complementary. "Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only," he explained in The Wealth of Nations.

Charity, while a virtuous act, could not alone provide the essentials for living. Self-interest was the mechanism that could remedy this shortcoming. Said Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Someone earning money by his own labor benefits himself. Unknowingly, he also benefits society, because to earn income on his labor in a competitive market, he must produce something others value.

In Adam Smith's lasting imagery, "By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."



Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
revlgking posted:
"Someone earning money by his own labor benefits himself. Unknowingly, he also benefits society"

Look into the mirror and repeat this quote until you get it.

Someone NOT earning money is a parasite and in no manner benefits society.

You quote Jesus Christ to give the impression that you morally superior. You quote Adam Smith to give the impression that you understand economics. Perhaps next you will quote Isaac Newton in an attempt to make it look like you understand the calculus.

Yet nowhere does reality match appearances. Do you really think there is anyone on the internet more than 10 years old that doesn't recognize you for what you are?


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There, now I feel better. :):)

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/06/07 11:44 AM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
TFF wrote:

"Yes, economics - the real economics - is science."

The science of economics hasn't yet come up with an effective method to control a free market though. Any uncontrolled market must always lead to a monopolies. We know this from another science as "survival of the fittest" (although this term was first used by an economist). What happens once a monopoly is formed? Monopolists have ways of making competition virtually impossible.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Looks life we have a "little" healthy controversy here. Some say economics is an art; others, it's a science!!!HMMMmm!

By the way, Porker family, I must apologize.

I hope you noticed that I censored myself, above, and I just cut out laughing at your plight caused by our forcing you to associate with us.

And seriously: It is not your fault if we human beings are not scientific and smart enough, yet, to realize that it is not good for your health, our health, the ecology, or even for the economy to do factory farming.

Questions

1. to utilitarian econcomists, like John Stuart Mill: Isn't factory farming just the kind of economic activity which does the greatest financial good for the least number of people?

2. Is this why Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) called economics the "dismal science"?

3. to climate experts: Is factory farming and the use of massive feed-lots one of the contributing factors to global warming, if there is such a thing?

4. What are some of the best books and studies on what our eating so much animal protein is doing to our health and the ecology?

Without depending on Mr. and Mrs. Google--putting it in a politically correct manner--what resources come to mind?

5. I wonder, did Harry Truman ever find that one-armed economist he said he was looking for? You know, the one he said who could never say: "On the other hand..."?

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/06/07 12:14 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Many words have deviated from their original etymologies. There are some whose sole relation to their etymologies are historical. There is no more reason to think that the science of economics is the same thing as the biblical notion of stewardship than there is to think that astronomy is the same thing as astrology or watching television.

I'm pretty well aware of who Adam Smith was and what his background was. What I'm not aware of is the relevance to the conversation except as some sort of very vague "reasoning" that goes something like this:

"Economics is science. Adam Smith was the first economist. Adam smith was a moral philosopher. Therefore economics is moral philosophy. This is underscored by the fact that it derives from a greek word that is claimed to mean (probably very loosely) 'stewardship'."

Have I got this right?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Post deleted by TheFallibleFiend

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
No! Unless you are telling us how you use twisted logic, twice. smile

My logic goes like this: I admire intelligent people, from all walks of life. Therefore, I quote them as good examples of people who have large minds and are capable of thinking outside the box.

I love quoting people who have healthy imaginations and room for philosophy, including theology, etc., science, including the technologies and art, including the art of religion.

ABOUT ASTROLOGY/ASTRONOMY
In ancient times they were one and the same; like pneumatology/psychology once were; like religion and the healing arts, and a lot of studies once were. In ancient times what we today call PhD's were the Magi. Maybe the new physicists, for example Seth Lloyd of Harvard--The World as a Quantum Computer--are leading us back to the essential unity of all things.

Reductionism and specialization--the bits-and-pieces approach--can have its value BUT
We need to beware of the danger of them. Carried too far it can be diabolic. The same is true of religion.
I usually describe sin as any good thing carried too far.
=======================================================
BTW, when I do a double posting, I go to edit. There, I click the delete option. Just being a helpful pneumatherapist. smile


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I'm very familiar with the historical link between astrology and astronomy. A salient point is that they are no longer considered the same subject. We - well, some of us - actually learned to differentiate the things that were knowable and demonstrable from the things that were just fantasy.

Reductionism has taken us a long way. There are people who are studying holistic approaches to science, by which I do not mean the stupidity espoused by various new age numb-skulls, but those who are studying what are known as complex adaptive systems (CAS). The Santa Fe Institute is a mecca for this kind of research. There are now numerous books on the subject: Holland ("Hidden Order" and "Emergence"), Koza (Genetic programming), Gell-Mann ("The Quark and the Jaguar"), Wolfram ("A New Kind of Science") and several others. In fact, I just started a CAS group for the research staff where I work. We have 57 members, 3 from outside the company and we typically have 18 to 30 people show up to our meetings every 3 to 4 weeks. The fact that scientists are looking at this new approach, this proto-science, doesn't mean that every ridiculous idea mentioned in a monastery or "holy" book is suddenly scientific. This CAS version of holism that scientists are looking at isn't mystical or magical or religious.

I'm not sure what your point is about Seth Lloyd (of MIT, not Harvard). He's also adjunct professor at SFI. There are lots of scientists who are atheists who have made even greater contributions to science than Seth Lloyd.

That there are scientists who believe in a god is not a scientific recommendation for that belief. Nor does it mean that God is a scientific subject.

I did not realize I had done a double posting. I'm not sure why that occurred. I do not recall having had trouble with that posting. Thanks for the tip.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 02/06/07 06:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
IFF wrote:
"That there are scientists who believe in a god is not a scientific recommendation for that belief. Nor does it mean that God is a scientific subject."

The fact that someone is an expert, or gifted, in one subject matter discipline gives them zero credibility in any other.

If I wanted to be in the news I'd call Paris Hilton. I don't ask her to advise me on physics or politics. If I wanted advice on investing I'd talk to my broker. I'd not ask him for recommendations on either a barber or a religion.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
You opine, "Nor does it mean that God is a scientific subject."
Your opinion is acknowledged.

However, in my humble opinion--and you are free to have your opinion, too: Any subject--physical, mental and spiritual--imaginable is open to being explored by the scientific method. This includes gods, God and G?D. Or, do you disagree. If so, why?

Quote:
I did not realize I had done a double posting. I'm not sure why that occurred. I do not recall having had trouble with that posting. Thanks for the tip.
You are welcome. I have discovered, to my chargrin, that 'puters are not perfect, yet. smile



G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

" This includes gods, God and G?D. Or, do you disagree. If so, why?"

God is not a subject about which one can develop scientific theories. It fails the falsification criterion.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

"4 A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice."

"5 Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

In short, the investigation of God by the scientific method is pretend science.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5