Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
2,199
1
Ahhhh look at all those denials. "The isn't a NObel prize for economics because it was set up after Nobel died!" Right well then you better get Paul Krugman on the phone and let him know his Nobel Prize isn't worth the paper its printed on ./giggle.

I mean, in the case of Samuelson, we're only talking about the man who made MITs economics department an internationally recognized institution. An Arch Keynesian no less. Funny how Mikhail will eat his own to prove his point. That's some desperation right there.
lol

I love how Keynesian capitalists are now "my own."

No one crops quotes to misrepresent anyone here but you
You literally just did it.

I'm pretty sure I did just quote you. Like 700 times.
You'll notice too, that hodj doesn't copy over the linked quote tags so that people can easily track references. Here I'm asking hodj to provide evidence of a specific claim about my posting and instead he's quoted me and responded as though I'm asking him for just any quote.Crazilydishonest.
 

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
84,929
171,935
Charlie participates in an experiment where scientists are testing a new genius pill. They keep giving him these pills and Charlie starts speaking mandarin, playing chess on multiple boards, reading chemistry, physics, Shakespeare, Tolstoy.

He becomes very condescending to the Waitress and rejects her, becomes condescending to his friends. He believes he is smarter than anyone and that his IQ has surpassed 200. Eventually he comes up with his own invention: a cat to spider translator.

Simultaneously it is revealed that the pill is a placebo and Charlie is as dumb as he ever was. He only thought he was smart and was acting accordingly. The mandarin he was speaking was gibberish, the chess games didnt even have real moves and so forth. See, all this talk about your classes, showing us your grades - you're Charlie on the genius pills, but unfortunately for you we can see the placebos you are taking.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
And now for Mikhail's assertion that anthropology isn't useful in determining social arrangements. Its actually its primary purpose, the study of humans is the study of culture. The study of culture is the study of our relations with one another. Its literally the PRIMARY SCIENCE for determining how social arrangements impact human lifestyles and habits

What is Anthropology?

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences. A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems. Historically, anthropologists in the United States have been trained in one of four areas: sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. Anthropologists often integrate the perspectives of several of these areas into their research, teaching, and professional lives.

Sociocultural Anthropology

Sociocultural anthropologists examine social patterns and practices across cultures, with a special interest in how people live in particular places and how they organize, govern, and create meaning.A hallmark of sociocultural anthropology is its concern with similarities and differences, both within and among societies, and its attention to race, sexuality, class, gender, and nationality. Research in sociocultural anthropology is distinguished by its emphasis on participant observation, which involves placing oneself in the research context for extended periods of time to gain a first-hand sense of how local knowledge is put to work in grappling with practical problems of everyday life and with basic philosophical problems of knowledge, truth, power, and justice. Topics of concern to sociocultural anthropologists include such areas as health, work, ecology and environment, education, agriculture and development, and social change.

Biological (or Physical) Anthropology

Biological anthropologists seek to understand how humans adapt to diverse environments, how biological and cultural processes work together to shape growth, development and behavior, and what causes disease and early death. In addition, they are interested in human biological origins, evolution and variation. They give primary attention to investigating questions having to do with evolutionary theory, our place in nature, adaptation and human biological variation. To understand these processes, biological anthropologists study other primates (primatology), the fossil record (paleoanthropology), prehistoric people (bioarchaeology), and the biology (e.g., health, cognition, hormones, growth and development) and genetics of living populations.

Archaeology

Archaeologists study past peoples and cultures, from the deepest prehistory to the recent past, through the analysis of material remains, ranging from artifacts and evidence of past environments to architecture and landscapes. Material evidence, such as pottery, stone tools, animal bone, and remains of structures, is examined within the context of theoretical paradigms, to address such topics as the formation of social groupings, ideologies, subsistence patterns, and interaction with the environment. Like other areas of anthropology, archaeology is a comparative discipline; it assumes basic human continuities over time and place, but also recognizes that every society is the product of its own particular history and that within every society there are commonalities as well as variation.

Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropology is the comparative study of ways in which language reflects and influences social life. It explores the many ways in which language practices define patterns of communication, formulate categories of social identity and group membership, organize large-scale cultural beliefs and ideologies, and, in conjunction with other forms of meaning-making, equip people with common cultural representations of their natural and social worlds. Linguistic anthropology shares with anthropology in general a concern to understand power, inequality, and social change, particularly as these are constructed and represented through language and discourse.

Addressing complex questions, such as human origins, the past and contemporary spread and treatment of infectious disease, or globalization, requires synthesizing information from all four subfields. Anthropologists are highly specialized in our research interests, yet we remain generalists in our observations of the human condition and we advocate for a public anthropology that is committed to bringing knowledge to broad audiences. Anthropologists collaborate closely with people whose cultural patterns and processes we seek to understand or whose living conditions require amelioration. Collaboration helps bridge social distances and gives greater voice to the people whose cultures and behaviors anthropologists study, enabling them to represent themselves in their own words. An engaged anthropology is committed to supporting social change efforts that arise from the interaction between community goals and anthropological research. Because the study of people, past and present, requires respect for the diversity of individuals, cultures, societies, and knowledge systems, anthropologists are expected to adhere to a strong code of professional ethics.
 

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
84,929
171,935
1. The Nobel prize in Economics isnt one of the real Nobel prizes. Its an award established by a bank that co-opted the Nobel name. The Nobel family has never accepted and still does not accept that as a legitimate Nobel prizes.

2. Nobel prizes are fucking bullshit
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
lol

I love how Keynesian capitalists are now "my own."
Well, they are.

You literally just did it.
No, I didn't, but you did earlier, so crying about it now is pretty funny. Maybe be a little less of a bitch about having your own medicine thrown back in your face sometime, I guess? Cause what's good for the goose, is great for the gander.

You'll notice too, that hodj doesn't copy over the linked quote tags so that people can easily track references.
ITS A CONSPIRACY. Actually, no one cares, except you, because you're salty about facts.

Here I'm asking hodj to provide evidence of a specific claim about my posting and he gave me exactly what I wanted which made my little butt sore so now I'm crying about it
ftfy bro
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Charlie participates in an experiment where scientists are testing a new genius pill. They keep giving him these pills and Charlie starts speaking mandarin, playing chess on multiple boards, reading chemistry, physics, Shakespeare, Tolstoy.

He becomes very condescending to the Waitress and rejects her, becomes condescending to his friends. He believes he is smarter than anyone and that his IQ has surpassed 200. Eventually he comes up with his own invention: a cat to spider translator.

Simultaneously it is revealed that the pill is a placebo and Charlie is as dumb as he ever was. He only thought he was smart and was acting accordingly. The mandarin he was speaking was gibberish, the chess games didnt even have real moves and so forth. See, all this talk about your classes, showing us your grades - you're Charlie on the genius pills, but unfortunately for you we can see the placebos you are taking.
Sounds a lot like what Mikhail and Dumar have been doing this entire thread, denying science and pretending they're smarter than everyone else. In fact going so far as to state it repeatedly.


1. The Nobel prize in Economics isnt one of the real Nobel prizes. Its an award established by a bank that co-opted the Nobel name. The Nobel family has never accepted and still does not accept that as a legitimate Nobel prizes.

2. Nobel prizes are fucking bullshit
Great. Now refute the fact that he was the pre eminent economics researcher of the past century, who, and I quote
did more than any other economist to raise the level of mathematical analysis in the profession.
Also, he was a genius Harvard grad at 16.

What schools did Marx graduate by 16, exactly, there Mikhail?

Hmmm?
 
2,199
1
ECONOMICS ISNT SCIENCE BECAUSE IF IT WERE THEN MARXISM WOULD BE WRONG AND I CANT HAVE THAT ABUH ABUH ABUH
Economics (at least what's called mainstream economics) isn't science because it isn't science. It's predicated on known-false premises like perfectly infallible, utterly omniscient, infinitely long-lived identical consumers, zero transaction costs, complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable events, no trading of any kind at disequilibrium prices, infinitely rapid velocities of prices and quantities, no radical incalculable uncertainty in real time but only probabilistically calculable risk in logical time, only linearly homogeneous production functions, no technical progress requiring embodied capital investment, and so on, and so on. These aren't external criticisms of economics, either. These are known problems within the field. But that doesn't stop dishonest people from failing to provide the sufficient grain of salt that comes with economic conclusions.

This
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Economics (at least what's called mainstream economics) isn't science because it isn't science.
Your logical fallacy is begging the question

begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.
Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.
And we're right back where we started.
 

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
84,929
171,935
Sounds a lot like what Mikhail and Dumar have been doing this entire thread, denying science and pretending they're smarter than everyone else. In fact going so far as to state it repeatedly.
You're projecting bro, the genius placebo effect is your M.O. right now

flowers-for-charlie-trainingwheels-1.gif
 
2,199
1
Well, they are.
They really aren't.

No, I didn't
Yes you did.

but you did earlier
I really didn't.

ITS A CONSPIRACY. Actually, no one cares, except you, because you're salty about facts.
I'm not the one making the facts harder to get at (not to mention completely dodging the associated point here by failing to quote it.

You're doing it again.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Hey Mik, when you and Dumar figure out why, when you're losing arguments, you just start repeating yourselves, I'd love to hear the explanation. The only excuse I can come up with is you're so mad you've forgotten which regurgitated copy paste Marxist arguments have already been put forward and shot down and which haven't.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
You mean the part where you selectively quote so that you don't actually have to deal with the argument that's been presented to you? Yeah, we never left that part.
Did you, or did you not, just state that economics isn't science, because its not science?

Is that, or is that not, the same premise being restated again as your conclusion?

If the answer to these question is yes, then guess what bro?

You just begged the question.

You're free to cry just a little harder though.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Let me know when you escape your fallacy logic loop pizza face

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
 

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
9,138
32,062
Here's the guy Mikhail says isn't credible

Paul Anthony Samuelson: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty



BUT BUT ONLY MARXIST PROFESSORS ARE CREDIBLE ECONOMICS ISNT SCIENCE BECAUSE IF IT WERE THEN MARXISM WOULD BE WRONG AND I CANT HAVE THAT ABUH ABUH ABUH
Are you saying Economics is a science? Just because it has trends that can be analyzed and metrics that are statistically powerful doesn't make it a science. You can do all the same things with horse racing or any other kind of sports handicapping and be successful if you know the secret recipe, doesn't make it science. The actual science is Statistics.
 

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
84,929
171,935
Are you saying Economics is a science? Just because it has trends that can be analyzed and metrics that are statistically powerful doesn't make it a science. You can do all the same things with horse racing or any other kind of sports handicapping and be successful if you know the secret recipe, doesn't make it science. The actual science is Statistics.
Statistics is a pseudo-science

I would put it right in the center of this diagram

309c09287b460819d5661e17220260e7.jpg
 
2,199
1
Did you, or did you not, just state that economics isn't science, because its not science?
I stated the reasons I don't think it's a science right after that fact. The "it's not a science because it's not a science" claim was a refutation to your claim that my argument was that I was rejecting it specifically to avoid its conclusions. There's no way you possibly didn't grasp what was going on there. You're just trying to troll me, but it's not going to work this time because I see right through you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.