[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.10 MB, 1456x2173, AdamSmith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5801619 No.5801619[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So I just got done reading about this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamh_Smith

The 'father of modern economics'

and you know, I gotta say man....

Britain really have pumped out an absolutely amazing amount of notable people. Really, compare Britain to any other European country. Compare the amount of legendary people like this that came out of all those countries in the past 4-500 years, and britain absolutely wins, without a doubt

Really, it's almost unexplainable, how they managed to do it.

Just imagine if Britain had America's population numbers, just imagine where the world would be today

>> No.5801622

Germany and France contributed more. Go to sleep, Nigel.

>> No.5801626

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

better link

>> No.5801627

>mfw a bong tried to tell me Britain was relevant near me

>> No.5801628

>/sci/ - Science & Math

>> No.5801631

>>5801619
I thought Adam Smith was the Mormon Jesus.

>> No.5801647

>>5801628

>economics
>science

pick both

>> No.5801654

>>5801619
Lagrange, Gauss, Riemann, Noether, Boylai, Descartes, Fermat, Von Neumann, Jacobi, Galois, Groethendieck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc.
Basically you're just wrong. Germany/France contributed more to mathematics and science in general.

>> No.5801655

>>5801647
>if im a subtle retard, no one will notice

>> No.5801663

>>5801655

>implying it's not.
>implying 'science' is limited to physical sciences.

you need to keep up with your philosophy son, Economics is a science, like it or not.

>> No.5801676

>>5801619

You're just overlwhelmingly Anglophilic. Stop that.

>> No.5801681

>>5801655

Not sure you understand that what is scientific is that kind of knowledge which is subjected to the scientific process; upon sustaining it is scientific. Economics, along with many other social sciences (note the use of the word "science" in context") apply this method and thus can be considered scientific.

>> No.5801688

>crediting countries for the accomplishments of individuals

>> No.5801692

Leonhard Euler is probably the most significant person in the entire history of mankind and he was Swiss.

>> No.5801699
File: 624 KB, 1000x767, polplsgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5801699

>>5801681
>1 use of 'economic' dwarfed by durr europoor vs muricunts faggotry
>maybe if i'm a subtle retard, no one will notice

>> No.5801714

>>5801699

You're going to have to reiterate, I have no idea what in the fuck you are trying to say

>> No.5801718

1. I study economics. I can accept that a lot of parts of it are not scientific. I consider those parts more like math or philosophy. But with that said there are still parts of economics that are empirical.

2. Keynes is really cool, he was english too.

3. Brittain has produced a lot of really dumb intelligent people, if you know what I mean. Lots of iconic brittish intellectuals are iconic for embodying something, like an opinion, or academic movement. Too often iconic brittish intellectuals arent iconic for being brilliant. Adam Smith is a great example I think.

>> No.5801720

>>5801681
lol

Obligatory Feynman video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

Seriously though, social science is so shoddy that hardly anyone in the hard science takes it seriously.

>> No.5801724

>>5801718

>implying 'being empirical' has anything to do to being scientific.

Science if about thinking hypothesis to describe phenomenons and testing those hypotheses through a method.

>> No.5801722

>>5801718
As a mathfag, FUCK YOU. YOUR GARBAGE IS NOTHING LIKE MATH. In mathematics we deal with absolute certainty and complete rigor. We don't ever talk about applications or extrapolate models from other things because that shit can deceive you incredibly easy.

>> No.5801725

>>5801720
>Feynman said it, therefore it must be true.

>> No.5801729

>>5801725
No, the point is that he said it "well". It is true regardless.

>> No.5801733

>>5801722
>being this mad.
it's too bad you will never actually use any of the math you learn. this is why math majors are fucking stupid. They think they are learning truth, when they are learning nothing but theory. What is truth if isn't used?

>> No.5801736

>>5801722

I am a math fag too as in, I am double majoring in economics and math.

> In mathematics we deal with absolute certainty and complete rigor.

I dont get what you are saying. No one deals with certainty. 'Certainty' is a quality of people, not academic fields. Plenty of non-mathematicians get to certain. I recognize that mathematicians strive for rigor. Naturally when one uses mathematics in a different field (say, physics), one has to rely on mathematical rigor as well.

A lot of good economic is just mathematicians. They are just doing mathematics. Like decision theory, auction theory, game theory, I would call pure math.

>> No.5801738

>>5801720

he went full retard there.

>> No.5801739

>>5801729
He didn't at all in my opinion. Hard sciences will always hate on what isn't a hard science. It's just they way people are in that field.

>> No.5801744

>>5801724

Did you make a grammar mistake? I cant understand you.

I dont view all economists as forming hypotheses. They dont check reality as a measure of validity.

>> No.5801747

>>5801744
>I dont view all economists as forming hypotheses.

>Not all economists do this, so economics is not a science.

nice logic you have there m8

>> No.5801753

>>5801744
>They dont check reality as a measure of validity.
Neither does all of science. Sometimes you HAVE to rely on the math and models, because it's no testable in reality.

>> No.5801758

>>5801736
It does not sound like you're majoring in a pure math field or you'd understand what it means to prove a theorem.

>> No.5801762

>>5801747

Well I mean, what is economics? 'economics' is a word we use to refer to people, but the people we are referring to dont necessarily have any common, or essential trait. A macro economist might have no common academic ground than another kind of economist.

Areas like macro economics, econometrics, and behavioral economics (if that still counts as economics), I would describe as scientific.

>> No.5801766

>>5801753

>Neither does all of science. Sometimes you HAVE to rely on the math and models, because it's no testable in reality.

Okay. So, is there a problem then? I am curious now, whats a non-economic example of not testable science?

>> No.5801773

>>5801762
Actually economics by itself is the science of decisions and it is applied to animals as well. Refer to neuroeconomics.

>> No.5801778

>>5801733
>I don't know anything about the world I live in.

>> No.5801782

>>5801773

>Actually economics by itself is the science of decisions

I disagree. But whatever.

>> No.5801790

>>5801766
>whats a non-economic example of not testable science?
theories of black holes, string theory, most of QM, Darwinian evolution theory...ect
basically anything of extreme complexity that is beyond our knowledge at this time.

>> No.5801792

>>5801782
>I disagree. But whatever.
That is like the definition of econ. It's how people or firms make decisions with the resources they have.

>> No.5801795

>>5801720

nice Ad Verecundiam fallacy you got there bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeal_to_authority

Feynman was an authority in physics, not in science philosophy

>> No.5801801

>>5801792

Yeah but, economics isnt a definition, is a body of real people and academic work. You dont necessarily learn anything about economics, by reading the definition of the word 'economics'.

Economics is a diverse and eclectic field, and I dont think you can stretch words like 'science' and 'decisions' to encapsulate the whole field.

>> No.5801802

>>5801795
refer to
>>5801729

The difference is.
>This is an authority, listen to what he says.
vs
>This guy said it better than I could have.

>> No.5801805

>>5801801
>and I dont think you can stretch words like 'science'

why not? I mean, we created the categories, we defined 'science' why do you think those definitions are static and can't change over time? And i'm not saying that you have to stretch the term to fit economics, I don't think you have to.

>> No.5801806

>>5801801
umm..sure, but any branch of econ deals with decision making by firms or people...so yeah. It's about learning how to optimize behavior, or learning how people optimize their own behavior. I don't know a field of econ that doesn't deal with that stuff.