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.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Addendum:

While neither "god" nor "spirit" are susceptible to scientific scrutiny, faith, being a neurological activity, is.

(Faith is not the same thing as "belief." People can't help their beliefs. Their faith, otoh, is something they have to keep telling themselves is true despite whatever the evidence happens to be.)

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, Maybe I am dumb, but I tried to read the following:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention. Admittedly, it could be my fault.

Meanwhile, if you are an atheist, would you mind telling me:
How come? And, what kind of atheist are you? And, are you certain you know what I mean when I speak of 'G?D'?


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
revlgking wrote:
"Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention."

No duh!


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention. Admittedly, it could be my fault."

I know what that's like. I wanted to go to Juliard, but I didn't like practicing music.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, I took the time and read the K.R. Popper article, Science as Falsification, very slowly and more than once.

Then I took the time and read Marx's theory of history, slowly, and more than once:
http://sfr-21.org/history.html
[I could not find anyone participating in the discussions forum.HMMM!!!]

I found both articles very obscure. I find that even the title of the KRP article obscure.

BTW, over the years I have tried to read Das Capital. Too obscure, for me. The same is true of the literature on social credit.

Could it be that all theories that do not work have one thing in common: they are obscure?




Last edited by Revlgking; 02/07/07 06:30 AM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I hate to say it guys but this post seems to have gone back to the dogs, er, gods. I'm sure there are other threads where we can talk god. This one's economics. Some time back Revlgking asked:

"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?"

Now that is economics. The Upper Paleolithic economy of Northern Eurasia seems to have involved eating nothing but meat. Eskimos living a traditional existence evidently still do. I'd guess most of us descend from people involved in the Eurasiatic Upper Paleolithic. Therefore it's fair to say most of us have evolved to cope with a diet rich in meat. So what's the problem?

But on the subject of god TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"(Faith is not the same thing as "belief." People can't help their beliefs. Their faith, otoh, is something they have to keep telling themselves is true despite whatever the evidence happens to be.)"

That's a very usefull distinction TFF. Thanks for that. We form beliefs as we grow up. We adopt a faith.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Could it be that all theories that do not work have one thing in common: they are obscure?"

That's part of the problem. Generally atheists consider religion-peddlers to be obscurantists. Depends on what we mean by obscure though. Some very worthwhile things do take effort to understand, but they can be understood to those who are willing to invest the time - thermodynamics, information theory, rocket science - all of them are very understandable. Each would be thought obscure by the lay person on first blush, and yet each is amenable to assimilation to the person who studies hard enough.
(Religion, otoh, epitomizes obscurantism.)

This is what Popper was trying to address. Marx and many others claimed (and continue to claim) that their ideas are "scientific" and so Popper naturally wondered "What is that makes a theory scientific?" That is called the "problem of demarcation." In the process of trying to solve this problem, he addressed the problem of induction raised by Hume centuries previously. That is, he came up with a deductive justification for science by rephrasing Hume's problem. It's a little confusing at first, but it's not THAT confusing. My daughters learned the basics of falsificationism in 7th grade. (No kidding. I was quite surprised to learn this.)

Over the millennia, the eminence of various groups have waxed and wained. Once "Knowledge" of the Cosmos rested in the minds of priests and kings. Their claim to knowledge was pretty much accepted on faith. Some things they could support, but others, they could not. With the rise of science, the priests have progressively lost standing. More people began to see the priests as the Great Oz chanting, "do not look behind the curtain."

People began - rightly or wrongly - to actually trust the results of science. Most of them don't understand it, not because they "can't" but because they're too lazy to put in the effort. But the knowledge is out there for anyone who is willing to study. The fact remains, though, that people tacitly accept "scientific" as a sort of Underwriters Laboratory seal of approval. It doesn't mean the "theory" is right, but it implies that it has been through some sort of rigorous "testing."

But the priests are jealous. Increasingly people are rejecting the old ways and the priests are losing their following. Their coffers are dwindling as is their authority. And so they are now trying to sell religion as "scientific." They put the label on it and the unwary are hoodwinked. Works for anyone trying to sell something. Nowadays all sort of products are marketed by giving them scientific sounding names: vehicles, electronics, hair products, religion. They want to associate their brand with the science label - and they are quite successful.

There have been and are many religionists, including some "intellectuals" who have promoted comically stupid ideas as scientific:

Arthur Conan Doyle promoted mediums and the existence of fairies.
He was much better about writing about logic than practicing it, as is obvious to anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes. Doyle was a brilliant writer to be able to create the illusion of logic without the substance of it.

Edgar Cayce continually used scientific-sounding, quasi-educated jargon to convey the "knowledge" he acquired in his "trances." Truly educated people would view his ramblings the same way they would the verbal acrobatics of Slip Mahoney (from the Bowery Boys).

Marx ... well, I think Popper does an adequate job of refuting him.

Various New Age enthusiasts - continually using words like "force" and "energy" among others as if the addition of this sort of verbiage adds credence to nonsensical ramblings.

Many religious obscurantists also like to promote their unique access to the "wisdom of the ages." Merlin knew things we didn't know; so did the Egyptians (pyramids have great powers!); so did the Chinese. This last one is funny. Modern anti-racists and faux multi-culturalists complain about how westerners objectify asians by spreading the view that asians are "mysterious." Of all the tripe to come out of the multi-cultural movement (and I *am* a multi-culturalist, just not in the sense of these pseudo-intellectual twits), this is the stupidest. For CENTURIES, Chinese (and other asian) cultures have promoted their mysteriousness - and NOW their bonehead descendants are pissed off that that the west bought into the blather. These are the wages of obscurantism.



Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Fallible. your ideas seem to belong more to "knock the revs" thread but they remind me of the moment in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when the multitude believed the Deep Thought Computer was about to tell them the answer to the question of the meaning of life. Two philosophers burst in and (with some deletions) the conversation goes like this:

"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"

"You just let the machines get on with adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much."

"That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Sums up the difference between religion and science? Mind you this post probably belongs on the "Science Fiction" thread. But I love the rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty bit.

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 02/07/07 09:04 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

'your ideas seem to belong more to "knock the revs" thread'

I'm not sure. I'm trying to draw a distinction between scientific inquiry and non-scientific inquiry. There entire method is completely different. A key factor is the ability to prove a theory wrong, if it is wrong.

It's utterly impossible to ever disprove the general existence of God with science. No matter what experiment you perform, you could always come back with, "Well, God chose not to do it that way." A thing that explains every conceivable outcome doesn't explain anything.

Because scientifically derived conclusions carry some weight in our society, we need to be very clear in how we distinguish science from non-science.

It has taken us thousands of years of recorded history and 10's of thousands of years of human activity to develop what we call science. The Method and Philosophy of science are among the most precious things we have. It is not something we should lightly permit to become conflated with other erroneous and error-prone kinds of "knowledge."



Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, you write
Quote:
Generally atheists consider religion-peddlers to be obscurantists.
I am no fan of obscurant religionists, or theologies. This is why I am not a tradional theist.

You mention, "Some very worthwhile things do take effort to understand, but they can be understood to those who are willing to invest the time - thermodynamics, etc...."

I accept this to be so. For example, I do not understand calculus, or the physics ot television. However, I know and have some confidence in the fact that there are those who do. Television manufacturers do make TV's. Engineers do build bridges and other marvellous structures with the help of maths.

I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent. I call this concept G?D. I am testing this concept, on a daily basis, For me, it works. I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work.

BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often. I always try to look for points of agreement.

BACK TO ECONOMICS: Terry you mention my question:
"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?"
Have you heard of DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET By Frances Moore Lappe? (1979)
WHO HAS HEARD OF THE ECONOMIST BERNARD LIETAER?
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4147
Also check out http://www.transaction.net
and http://www.torontodollar.com
backed by the Mayor of Toronto


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
OK. So is economics science or do economists accept rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty? Many economic theories have been proved not to achieve what they were apparently introduced to achieve. However this may have more to do with the fact that we were misled as to the true motive for their introduction.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I think of economics as a social science.

BTW, I have a strong feeling that we have been conned by those who create money out of OUR assets and then loan it to us and call it credit.

Actually, all fiat money is debt, to us, created by the banks. The banks show it on their books as an asset, to them.

Why are we afraid to create money as we need it and can and will back it with our own assets--goods and services we can produce? It is not illegal, as long as you do claim it is legal tender.


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 am no fan of obscurant religionists, or theologies. This is why I am not a tradional theist."

But theism, traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.

"I do not understand calculus, or the physics ot television."
Very good. You do not understand these things. Do you attempt to apply them to your philosophy or your theism?

"However, I know and have some confidence in the fact that there are those who do. Television manufacturers do make TV's. Engineers do build bridges and other marvellous structures with the help of maths."
Excellent! You don't have to know how to build a bridge or make a television in order to use them. Let's say that I proposed the following topic of discussion, "Bridge design proves atheists are correct," but I had not studied engineering in college. (In fact, I have studied engineering, and took a courses in statics and materials science, but that still doesn't qualify me to comment on bridge design. Let's just say I have zero background.) Now, Dan and I don't get along, him being so religious an all. Let's say Dan doesn't have a background in bridge design either, but Dan actually does have some modest background in engineering. Dan has had numerous classes in materials science and statics and physics. Moreover, Dan has held a position of some responsibility in a firm that builds bridges and has done extensive reading on the subject, from a historical, a technical, and a theoretical perspective. Dan reads my first few sentences and realizes that I'm missing something. So Dan refers me to something that will help me bridge the gap in my understanding. I come back relatively quickly to Dan and say, "Dan, nothing in that reference appealed to me, but I'm going to persist in making my argument anyway."
How should Dan respond to me?

"I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."
I'm not sure what you mean by transparent here.

"I call this concept G?D."
Still confused.

"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"
Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?

"For me, it works."
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.

"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."
It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).

"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."
I can imagine. I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.

"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...theism (writes TFF), traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.
I, too, like being matter-of-fact and non-confrontational. Obviously, we have things in common.

I AM, AT LEAST, THREE COMPONENTS OF BEING
Therefore, let me (LGK) put it this way: Because I think of myself as a human being and, therefore, aware that I am aware, I think of myself as being made up of, at least, three components (essential and integrated parts) as follows:

1. I have a physical body--which is not unlike the hardware of my computer
2. I have a physical brain--not unlike the software of my computer.

3. However, I think of myself as being a mind, a consciousness, a soul, a spirit--not just matter, however important--which, though very weak, has will-power.

Unlike animals, and certain animal-like, so-called human beings, I know that I have the power to make a choice.

When I sit as my PC, I tell it what do. I have a strong feeling that if I put garbage in, I will get garbage out. "As I sow, so will I reap" as Paul put it, in Galatians.

As a human mind, whatever...I am free to use this weak power to programme the software and harness the hardware I possess, and to get things done, which I choose to get done.

Weak power may be a weak, but it is still a power. It is, like the trigger which triggers atomic explosions.

Here, I left out the story about Dan.

BTW, your question: How should Dan respond? confuses me (LGK).


I (LGK) wrote: "I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."

You (TFF) responded: "I'm not sure what you mean by transparent, here."

Let me put it this way: G?D is the symbol I use to refer to total universal and all-encompassing existence--the total matrix of all that IS.

If you can think of anything outside the matrix of existence, as I think of it, and demonstate that it is beyond what I include, then I will agree to include it.

G?D is the symbol I use to cover that which is over and above, all that can be covered.


"I call this concept G?D."

Still confused? Let me know, and ask questions.

"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"

You ask, "Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?"

YES!!! If it doesn't work, it does not exist.

I WILL LEAVE THE FOLLOWING FOR COMMENT, LATER:

Quote:
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.

"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."

It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).

"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."

I can imagine.

I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.

"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.



Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The posting seems to have dried up, so I'll just add a quick note about standard definitions of economics.

According to the Encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta, the study of economics draws on knowledge from many spheres, including sociology, psychology, anthropology, ethics, history and, of course, mathematics. So, the short answer to the topic question is:

"Yes, it's a science - a social science".

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I agree. And I think the nature and function of our economy is too important to be left to the so-called experts.

Sure we need the experts, providing they are humble enough to involve and work with the philsophers, spiritual leaders, the artists and just ordinary people trying to make a living.

Just this morning, on the CBC, Toronto, I heard a "money" expert comment on the third attempt by the Americans to introduce a dollar coin. Over and over again, he made the point that the creation and circulation of money is affected, very much by psychological factors. This why the first two attempts the Americans made to introduce a dollar coin failed.

Then he said: "The creation and use of money depends, highly, on
human faith in it. Every time someone gives you a dollar, and you take it, you do so in the belief that another person will take it from you when you need to spend it. Of itself, that dollar has no intrinsic value."

I call this a pneumatological factor



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

"Sure we need the experts, providing they are humble enough to involve and work with the philsophers, spiritual leaders, the artists and just ordinary people trying to make a living."

I don't *quite* agree with that, but it's close to something I would agree with. I don't think experts need to be humble.

If economics is going to be actual science, then it economists need to give us their science completely unvarnished by human concerns; however, policy makers and those who implement policy need to understand that a good economy isn't an end unto itself. Sometimes we have to have a less than perfect economy in order to promote other human interests. The advice that economists can give is, "If you do A, then B is likely to happen." Policy makers should then hypothetically consult sociologists, "If B happens, what effect will that have on my constituents?" Ideally , you would get several economists, policy makers, and sociologists in the room at the same time to discuss a given problem or range of problems. This is what's called a conference.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
If economics is going to be actual science, then it economists need to give us their science completely unvarnished by human concerns;

I think the human concerns must be part of the equations.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Sometimes we have to have a less than perfect economy in order to promote other human interests.

That's an interesting point. If it's true, I should think other human interests are being well promoted! Can you elaborate?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Ideally , you would get several economists, policy makers, and sociologists in the room at the same time to discuss a given problem or range of problems. This is what's called a conference.

I think it must be true that the science of economics is so broad-spectrum that interdisciplinary effort is required to provide good data and good results. Does anyone here know how it actually works?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Revlgking wrote:

"Just this morning, on the CBC, Toronto, I heard a "money" expert comment on the third attempt by the Americans to introduce a dollar coin. Over and over again, he made the point that the creation and circulation of money is affected, very much by psychological factors. This why the first two attempts the Americans made to introduce a dollar coin failed."

Ah. But the economy is about much more than just money. All human groups anthropologists have studied have some means of circulating goods and services.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Terry, you comment "Ah. But the economy is about much more than just money."

Please, elaborate.

"All human groups anthropologists have studied' you write, "have some means of circulating goods and services."

Again I say, elaborate.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Revlgking. I must confess I only did stage 1 economics at university but we learned that money is simply a medium of exchange. Smokes serve the same purpose in prison (so I'm told). Money wasn't invented until about 600 BC, by the Lydians I think. But surely no-one would deny the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians had an economy. Goods were traded for thousands of miles (kilometres if you prefer). In pre-European Australia artifacts also made it huge distances from their place of origin. This exchange over huge distances makes its appearance in the Upper Paleolithic. They mightn't have had a stock exchange but I'd have to call it an economy. Perhaps we would be better able to study modern economies if we keep all this in mind.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Terry:
You mention the fact that any acceptable commodity--for example, cigs in prison--can be used as form of money. With this in mind I repeat what I asked in an earlier thread, I hope you will read the following information and let us know what you think:

WHO HAS HEARD OF THE ECONOMIST BERNARD LIETAER? He is a great advocate of what I call complementary and community currencies (CCC's). Keep in mind that CCC's are not meant as a replacement for the normal national kind of currency; but as complementary to it, especially when normal cash is in short supply to most of us, except for the fortunate few among us who happen to be rich in cash. I first wrote about this idea in the 1960's:
Quote:
Jurriaan Kamp
This article appeared in Ode issue: 26 It was repeated in the Toronto Star--Canada's largest daily.

What is money? Do we need more of it to solve some of the world?s problems? Or is money the cause of them? Ex-banker Bernard Lietaer thinks the latter is the case. And he has the solution: a new kind of money.


You have no idea what money is. Bernard Lietaer is too friendly and modest a man to say it that way, but this is the easiest possible way to sum up his message. If you did know what money was, then you?we?would see to it that we had a different monetary system.
Everything revolves around money. It?s more than a clich?; it?s the daily experience of just about every world citizen not part of an indigenous tribe in the Amazon rain forest. And this daily experience involves, above all else, a continuous shortage of money.

There is not enough money to send the children to school. Not enough money for hospitals, or to care for the ever-greater numbers of old people who are getting ever older. Not enough money to clean up the environment and keep it that way. There is a lot of work to do, but no money to pay for it. Who among us is not familiar with the feeling of wanting to contribute something but having ?no money? to pay for that valuable contribution? The sad conclusion: If we just had more money, the world and our lives would be better.
For the complete article, go to:

http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4147

Also check out http://www.transaction.net

In Toronto, in the 1970's, I helped start a foundation, which helped start the Toronto Dollar system:

and http://www.torontodollar.com
BTW, the TD is backed by David Miller, the Mayor of Toronto.




G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
This is out of left field, but....

Neuroeconomics is a subject (possibly) created by this guy, Paul J. Zak (google).

I was watching a lecture by him and he was talking about a paper coming out dealing with Empathy and Belief in God (among other things).

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=10895&fID=573

Interesting and pertains to many topics on this forum.

Here's a sample of his work.

Quote:

Title: The Neurobiology of Trust
Authors: Paul J. Zak, Robert Kurzban, and William Matzner
Presenter: Paul J. Zak
Abstract:
Human beings exhibit substantial interpersonal trust-even with strangers. Animal models indicate that the neuroactive peptide oxytocin mediates social attachments, and we develop an application of these findings to humans. Interpersonal trust is examined in 38 subjects using a one-shot, game-theoretic social interaction with monetary payoffs developed by Berg, Dickhaut & McCabe (1995). In this interaction, one-half the subjects are assigned the role of decisionmaker 1 (DM1) and are given $10 and can transfer by computer any integer amount (including zero) to an anonymous subject in the lab.
The amount transferred is tripled in the receiving subjects' (DM2s) accounts, and these subjects may transfer any amount (including zero) back to the DM1s to whom they are paired. The amount DM1s transfer to DM2s is a measure of trust, and the amount DM2s return to DM1s indicates the degree of trustworthiness. Oxytocin is measured in blood plasma immediately following the decision made by each subject. The data show that oxytocin levels rise in direct proportion to the amount that is transferred to DM2s, and these subjects return more to DM1s.
That is, oxytocin responds to a signal of trust, and facilitates trustworthiness. Other factors that could affect oxytocin levels are shown not to affect transfer amounts indicating that Oxytocin levels are responding to the experimental stimulus. We conclude that signals of trust activate the mammalian attachment system causing the release of oxytocin and facilitating trustworthiness.

...and

Title:Building Trust: Public Policy, Interpersonal Trust, and Economic
Development
Authors: Stephen Knack and Paul J. Zak
Presenter: Paul J. Zak
Contact info: Dept. of Economics, Claremont Graduate University,
Claremont, CA 91711-6165, paul.zak@cgu.edu
Abstract:
Because Zak & Knack (2001, Economic Journal) demonstrate that sufficient interpersonal trust is a necessary condition for economic development, this paper builds a formal model characterizing public policy that can raise trust. We derive optimal funding for a number of potentially trust-raising policies when the objective is economic growth.
Policies examined include those that increase freedom of association, build civic cultures, enhance judicial contract enforcement, reduce income inequality, and raise educational levels. Even with optimal funding, a low-trust institutional poverty trap is shown to exist. Testing the model's predictions for a sample of 43 countries, we find very few policies raise trust sufficiently vis-a-vis growth to warrant funding as part of a program of economic development.




Just thought this was interesting.
Some of the links use the term neuroeconomics in relation to "peace research & development," I think.

...and here's a Scientific American article on the subject:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=...9F&colID=13

~just fyi


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Sam, thanks for your contribution as above. Now let us talk about economics.

Because I perceive you to be a very perceptive and rational member of this forum, I ask you, and others like you--those who also take a perceptive and rational approach to controversial subjects--the following questions:

1. How closely have you studied the history, nature and function of money?

2. I would love to dialogue with you about this. With you, I include anyone, who is an expert is economics. I think of myself as an intuitive economist

3. Who among you is willing to persue this subject of economics, including the nature and function of money, until we come to a solution to the problem of poverty?



Last edited by Revlgking; 06/10/07 01:22 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
...darn modem...brb....

Heya Revl.
Thanks, I have to admit I still haven't checked out that economics link you provided weeks ago (but it's still on my list). Anyway, I only took one MacroEcon. 101 class back in the 70's. But, I do try to watch the news and keep up.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll be happy to try and pursue this with you; but first could you read the "Terra Preta soils..." up on General Sci. (just my last post) and then read the 'Glacier was 49ft. thick' (something like that) on the top of the Climate Change Forum (just my last post).

I'm hoping you'll be inspired to comment at that point; but if not, those'll still give you a sense of what direction I'd like to pursue economically.


Below is a quote from a different Climate Change Forum post. It'll give you an idea about my perspective on economics.


...sorry, I didn't get the whole post, but the suggestion was made that development would be a good way to adapt to climate change "Let's work on building their capacity to respond to an event." -Canuk (referring to the undeveloped world)

...my response was:
Quote:
Development? Development!?

(mumbles to self) Isn't that how we got into this situation?

If we had started focusing on technologies to develop sustainability back in the 70's; we'd be in a position to export that technology around the world and do as you suggest. At this point, when I hear people talking about "exporting" development, all I can think about is China & NAFTA (to where we have outsourced our pollution). All we seem to be able to export is "democracy." (he said sarcastically)

I was real impressed with the recent philanthropic gifts (Gates, Buffet, etc.); but what are these people that they're saving going to do? Can they find a job sequestering Carbon? Where will they get their food and water? Branson at least has a global goal (and very profitable too!).

There are signs of effectiveness, such as: Microloans & Envirofit's first product is a Direct In-cylinder (DI) fuel injection retrofit kit for two-stoke motorcycle engines that significantly improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions.
[designed for use in third world: google Envirofit]

But aren't we way too much "behind the curve" to rely on "business as usual" development?
Simply turning the third world into consumers will only work for one or two more generations before the whole pyramid scheme falls apart.

I do agree with your points about the subsidies. They perpetuate unsustainability.

I think developing the '3rd world' needs to be done as a part of "saving the world." It has to be done in a sustainable way.

Unless the true costs of the pollution and associated consequences of unbridled private investment are accounted for, the profit motive will overwhelm any goal of "helping" the people or the planet.

smile
Not that I have any ideas or solutions...yet. But am I looking in the right direction?

~~Samwik




I'm thinking that there are still some workable "synergistic" solutions out there; but...implementation?

Thanks again,
~SA

Last edited by samwik; 06/10/07 04:26 AM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TFF, Maybe I am dumb, but I tried to read the following:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, grabs my attention. Admittedly, it could be my fault....


This did grab my attention, just now:
Quote:
4. The case of astrology, nowadays a typical pseudo-science, may illustrate this point.

It was attacked, by Aristotelians and other rationalists, down to Newton's day, for the wrong reason — for its now an accepted assertion that the planets had an "influence" upon terrestrial ("sublunar") events. In fact Newton's theory of gravity, and especially the lunar theory of the tides, was historically speaking an offspring of astrological lore.

Newton, it seems, was most reluctant to adopt a theory which came from the same stable as for example the theory that "influenza" epidemics are due to an astral "influence."

And Galileo, no doubt for the same reason, actually rejected the lunar theory of the tides; and his misgivings about Kepler may easily be explained by his misgivings about astrology.
It is interesting that we still speak of the "flu" perhaps not realizing that it is related to astrology and "influence"--that is, the influence (influenza) which the stars are supposed to have on all our daily lives.

Last edited by Revlgking; 08/14/09 01:53 AM. Reason: communication

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
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