/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11048788]

>economics is a legitimate science

[Anonymous No.11048790]

>>11048788
t. poorfag physicist

[Anonymous No.11048799]

>>11048788
Alfred Nobel never wanted the Nobel Prize in Economics to exist

[Anonymous No.11048804]

>>11048790
as if economists get jobs. at least physics is a road to “data “””science””””“ jobs

[Anonymous No.11048806]

>>11048788
If I can predict choices you make, its literally a science: BOOM!

[Anonymous No.11048807]

>>11048806
If Ezekiel benefits from 968 lessons of violin he's a retard

[Anonymous No.11048832]

>>11048788
False.
He should skip all the class before the 968th lesson and take the 968th lesson, because it is the only lesson gauranteed to improve his playing.

[Anonymous No.11048841]

>>11048788
True, he needs the 968th lesson and a few more to make sure he actually improved and it wasn't just a one-time fluke that happened to match up with the obviously arbitrary number he insisted would fix things.

[Anonymous No.11048877]

>economics is a legitimate science

[Anonymous No.11048910]

>>11048788
True. And to start off, he should set up 967 which he skips entirely, so that he only hops onto the 968th one.

[Anonymous No.11048935]

>>11048877
You cant deny there are certain acts, you do X, therefore, you cannot concurrently do Y, another desired act, at the same time. If I can calculate the probabilities of these actions, its a science.

[Anonymous No.11048950]

False, it doesn't specifically say that THE 968th lesson will improve his playing, but that the 968th lesson will DEFINITELY improve his playing, which it implies it's already improved upon and the 968th lesson is not a requirement, so to say he should take exactly 968 lessons to improve is false

[Anonymous No.11049061]

He should take a lifetime of lessons and become the best violinist he can possibly be. They're free lessons. It's not like he has anything better to do with his life.

[Anonymous No.11049062]

>I consider economics to be a non-science based on my profound knowledge of that one college-level course that I skipped, a movie with DiCaprio, and general distrust towards politicians and forex market shenanigans; The Thread

[Anonymous No.11049112]

>>11049062
yeah op's question reminds me of the questions i had in like econ 1, 3 , etc. they infuriated me and i started really to doubt whether i made the right choice. now im in my 4th year and i dont mind it as much because things got more mathematical and concrete

[Anonymous No.11049430]

>>11048799
But there's no Nobel prize for economy.
The Bank of Sweden gives a prize on memory of Alfred Nobel because economists (or ratherz their rich masters) want the legitimacy.
Stupid normies fell for it and started to call it the Nobel prize.

[Anonymous No.11049450]

>>11049430
The bank of Sweden has a holding account of Nobel's money and the interest is used to pay for the prizes as per his will.

[Anonymous No.11049545]

>>11049450
Nobel only made Nobel prizes because he was going to be remembered as the merchant of death that invented dynamite.
We should remember him for that. Call them death prizes.

[Anonymous No.11049569]

>>11049545
Actually he made it for mining, then the military used it for weapons.
I'm a huge Noble fan (the man not the prizes)

[Anonymous No.11049585]

>>11049545
OY OY OY VEY. The Nobel Prize is a prestigious recognition for our greatest achievers.

[Anonymous No.11049587]

>>11048788
It can use some maffs and game theory, but the core is psychology and ideology/moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11049588]

>>11049545
that is the dumbest criticism of the nobel prizes you can come up with
fuck bleeding heart libtards for being retarded

[Anonymous No.11049592]

>>11048832
kek

[Anonymous No.11049593]

>>11048877
>prediction: uncertainty
based

[Anonymous No.11049600]

Just play the goddamn fiddle! I’ll give him a fat five-dollar gold piece if he’ll play his little chili pepper heart out!

[Anonymous No.11049606]

>>11049587
you got it backwards, it's mostly math and game theory, psychology only enters the discussion in a subfield known as behavioral economics, economists try to keep clear of ideology and moral judgement and they only are used being necessary in normative economics

[Anonymous No.11049631]

>>11048950
>False, it doesn't specifically say that THE 968th lesson will improve his playing, but that the 968th lesson will DEFINITELY improve his playing,
so it is between whether the 968th lesson itself is what improves him, or whether you need 968 lessons to definitely improve
>which it implies it's already improved upon and the 968th lesson is not a requirement
what the fuck? no, what sort of interpretation is this?

if anything it is uncertain because of the ambiguity in whether it is the number of lessons or the lesson itself

this >>11048877 is a retarded/dishonest answer, because we have already been told his utility lies in improving his playing, with no restrictions stated -- so it unfair to suddenly say that he not only wants to improve playing, but also wants to improve it FAST.

[Anonymous No.11050292]

>>11049631
>this >>11048877 is a retarded/dishonest answer, because we have already been told his utility lies in improving his playing, with no restrictions stated -- so it unfair to suddenly say that he not only wants to improve playing, but also wants to improve it FAST.
congrats on not getting it, you retard.

In order for little Zeke to decide whether or not he wants to take 968 violin lessons, he has to weigh the utility gained from improving his violin skills against the utility not-gained from all the other stuff he could be doing during those hours where he would be taking violin lessons.
The answer is uncertain because we, the reader, are not Ezekiel, and thus cannot ascertain for sure what his subjective preferences are and how many violin lessons he would like to take.


>>11048950
>to say he should take exactly 968 lessons to improve is false
it doesn't say that, it asks whether he should take AT LEAST 968 lessons

>>11049587
philosophy is the core of all sciences so whatever. the real problem with economics is that we use too much maths and too little philosophy, niggas just assume utilitarism is real and start developing theory from there

[Anonymous No.11050311]

>>11050292
we were told his goal was to improve his violin skills with no restrictions
were were told "the 968th" definitely will improve his skills

given that his utility comes from improving, his goal is fulfilled once he either
>takes the 968th class
>takes 968 classes (ending on the 968th)
depending on what is meant by the statement "the 968th lesson will improve him"

bringing in whether his time would be better spent doing other stuff is irrelevant given that we know his utility comes from improving.

[Anonymous No.11050332]

>>11050311
you're ignoring MARGINAL GAINS, you dumbass.
The 968th lesson will improve his skills, but so will 967, 966, 965... all the way down to lesson 1. But each lesson will improve his skills by a different amount and will give him a different amount of utility.
To decide whether or not he should take another lesson, Ezekiel would weigh the marginal (i.e. incremental) utility gained from an additional class vs whatever else he could be doing.

>b-but there are no restrictions!
No, we were not informed of any restrictions. Nowhere does it say that there are no restrictions. And that's why the answer is uncertain. Maybe all Ezekiel wants to do is play violin 24/7, maybe he doesn't. We are not Ezekiel, and we do not know.
Now, if it were stated that Ezekiel's subjective preferences are improving his violin skills above all else, then he should take as many violin lessons as needed to reach his skill ceiling.

[Anonymous No.11050334]

>>11048788
Economics is the religion of consume.
Malthus and basic science is their version of the anti-christ.

[Anonymous No.11050336]

>>11050332 here. forgot to say this:

>>11050311
>bringing in whether his time would be better spent doing other stuff is irrelevant given that we know his utility comes from improving.
we don't know whether his utility comes ONLY from improving, though.

[Anonymous No.11050354]

>>11050334
>economics is the religion of consume
>malthus is their version of the anti-christ
lmao you retard read a book on the history of economic thought

[Anonymous No.11050366]

>>11050354
>>11049062
Mega pseud posts desu

Science as the term is used commonly today refers to the study of natural phenomena using empirical observation, inductive logic and accurate mechanistic modeling of those phenomena. Economics cannot identify nor properly define and analyze its objects of study, they are generated from almost exclusively philosophical and mathematical assumptions which precludes empirical observation, thus resisting mechanistic explanations. Economics while at times an accurate machine for predicting "economic systems" behavior does not have the same connection with actual physical processes that atmospheric physics and climatology do. The distinction between these 3 field is subtle with respect to their inconsistent predictive powers however the latter two do have a basis in physical theory while economics merely pays lipservice to physical theory when convenient without holding itself to fundamental standards of rigor based in experimentation and mechanistic logic.

[Anonymous No.11050368]

>>11050354
Market worshippers are human garbage, and are sinners according to every major religion for the past 10 thousand years.

[Anonymous No.11050383]

>>11050368
>every major religion for the past 10 thousand years.
I really really really hope you are not catholic because if you are, you should know there is no biggest market worshipper than the church. They own real state and assets almost everywhere which are arranged in multiple holding companies with fake beneficiaries and participate in what is essentially a banking cartel using (you)r money to fund the operations of what is really a hedge fund that takes from the poor to give to the rich.

[Anonymous No.11050393]

>>11050383
gluttony is a sin. and it doesn't just apply to food. no i am not catholic.

[Anonymous No.11050396]

>>11050383
seems like the catholic church is evil. and always has been desu

[Anonymous No.11050403]

>>11050383
ya fuck the church.

[Anonymous No.11050404]

>>11050396
The catholic church used to be cool. Back in the day it was essentially a gentlemen's club that hosted orgies and murders. Now it's all about money laundering. SAD.

[Anonymous No.11050407]

>>11050404
ya all that torture and pedo shit back in the day was so cool

[Anonymous No.11050420]

>>11050407
No, the pedo shit is also modern. Back when the church ruled Europe they just fucked thousands of prostitutes. When they lost that power all the normal men fucked off to where they could still afford thousands of whores (banking, government, etc), leaving only the weirdos. The people so fucked in the head that fucking hookers is too vanilla for them. They gotta fuck kids.

[Anonymous No.11050423]

>>11048788
False.
He should take "AT MOST" 968 lessons.
He is just trying to improve his skill and not necessarily trying to maximize his skill.
If his skill were to improve on the first lesson, his goal would be accomplished and subsequent lessons would be unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.11050444]

>>11050423
>at most
this was never stated nor implied in the problem, all that's given is that he has an active desire to improve his play. what we cannot know since there is no objective means of ascertaining this, would be whether he is satisfied with mere progress or has a measurable performance standard he'd like to attain to at some point. If we ignore the obvious implication that there is uncertainty as to what he intends for himself in seeking the development of this skill then sure we could state what you've asserted but it would be even less useful an interpretation than the actual answer given.

[Anonymous No.11050448]

>>11050420
pretty sure some pope back in like 1300ad liked to have little boys jump out of cakes or some shit and it was tolerated. also inquisition. the church was always fucked

[Anonymous No.11050496]

>>11050448
I don't know about that pope but I'll believe you. My point is that the church used to be alpha fucked (kill your enemies, fuck prostitutes, impregnate your cousin), now it's weirdo fucked (forgive your enemies, pedophilia, homosexualty)

[Anonymous No.11050510]

>>11050444
>at most
>this was never stated nor implied in the problem
>Statement: He should take at least 968 lessons.
>at least
To be an efficient troll, you should be typing less than the people you are trolling.

[Anonymous No.11051140]

>>11050366
>Economics cannot identify nor properly define and analyze its objects of study, they are generated from almost exclusively philosophical and mathematical assumptions which precludes empirical observation, thus resisting mechanistic explanations.
let me show you how dumb your statement is:

>Mathematics cannot identify nor properly define and analyze its objects of study, they are generated from almost exclusively philosophical and mathematical assumptions which precludes empirical observation, thus resisting mechanistic explanations.
This phrase describes mathematics very appropriately and yet you wouldn't say math isn't a real science, would you?

>>11050423
>He is just trying to improve his skill and not necessarily trying to maximize his skill.
>If his skill were to improve on the first lesson, his goal would be accomplished and subsequent lessons would be unnecessary.
improving your skills isn't a 0/1 variable, you retard. It's a continuum. The 968th lesson would improve his skills, but all the other 967 would have improved his skills too. The question is: is the improvement received from the 968th lesson worth the time spent? We do not know.

>>11050368
you're delusional.
where have i implied i am a market worshipper and where have I implied I disagree with Malthus, you dumb cunt?

[Anonymous No.11051386]

>>11050366
Nobody cares about what you think. Numerous criteria have been proposed by actual scientists including physicists and economics consistently falls into the label of science on the same grounds as physics or chemistry.
Your *opinion* is irrelevant. The irony of calling someone a pseud and then making a fucking philosophical rant. You are unironically a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11052634]

it is a science