Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • REALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POLITY

    http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspxTHE REALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POLITY

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-09 09:07:00 UTC

  • QUOTE OF THE DAY “Ugh, the c-word: consensus. Science does not work that way. Wh

    QUOTE OF THE DAY

    “Ugh, the c-word: consensus. Science does not work that way. What is the ‘consensus’ on the necessity of state?” – Paul Vahur

    (Almost fell off my chair 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-21 12:11:00 UTC

  • RECORD AND IMPROVABILITY OF ECONOMIC FORECASTING “…economist Victor Zarnowitz

    http://m.nber.org/papers/w2099.pdfTHE RECORD AND IMPROVABILITY OF ECONOMIC FORECASTING

    http://m.nber.org//papers/w2099.pdf

    “…economist Victor Zarnowitz wrote in “The Record and Improvability of Economic Forecasting” that there was too much reliance on trends, and he also noted that predictive failure was also due to forecasters’ incentives. Zarnowitz wrote: “predicting a general downturn is always unpopular and predicting it prematurely—ahead of others—may prove quite costly to the forecaster and his customers”.

    Incentives motivate Wall Street economic forecasters to always be optimistic about the future (just like stock analysts). Of course, for the media and bloggers, there is an incentive to always be bearish, because bad news drives traffic (hence the prevalence of yellow journalism).

    In addition to paying attention to incentives, we also have to be careful not to rely “heavily on the persistence of trends”. One of the reasons I focus on residential investment (especially housing starts and new home sales) is residential investment is very cyclical and is frequently the best leading indicator for the economy. UCLA’s Ed Leamer went so far as to argue that: “Housing IS the Business Cycle”.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-20 15:48:00 UTC

  • Mathematics vs Cinema As Tools For Explaining The Universe

    ‎”Cinema can still explain the whole world. Mathematicians think it’s math. I believe it’s cinema.” – Jean-Luc Godard

    Mathematics can explain only what we cannot sense. That is why we have mathematics: to compensate for our limited ability to perceive the universe. However, human concepts must at some point be reduced to those stimuli which we can experience. All language is reducible to an analogy to experience. All imagery is by definition experience. Mathematics is, at some degree of abstraction, simply a vehicle for compensating for our terribly weak short term memories by creating categories, applying quantities, and rearranging symbols while preserving ratios. The mind could do this without mathematics if we had the short term memory to do it with. Film is, today, the most informationally rich means by which, that which we *cannot* perceive directly, can be reduced by analogy and narrative, to that which we *can* perceive directly. At first glance, these statements are not terribly romantic. But after we consider that human beings have invented mathematics, the narrative, and visual media so that we can rapidly sense what we could not sense directly, we can certainly wonder at the marvel of what man can accomplish in the service of his mind and his experience. And in that understanding we can appreciate that there is no material difference between mathematics and cinema. They are simply extensions of us. And that is as romantic an experience as any. – Curt Doolittle 😉 (Originally posted under FilmmakerIQ)

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOG

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND ACADEMIC BLOGGERS

    AND A NOTE ON PRAXEOLOGY

    Um. It’s not complicated:

    1) Academics make more complex errors in logic. Independents tend to not possess sufficient scope of knowledge to render the opinions that they do. So they make more simplistic errors out of ignorance. Most logical errors I find in academic work are due to methodological constraints within a narrow discipline that erroneously attribute causation within that paradigm.

    2) Academic errors are most often driven by accepted political beliefs. Popper and Kuhn’s warning about paradigmiatic traps is a greater problem in economic science than it is in the physical sciences. Independent writers tend to vary more from the accepted paradigm. Thats why they’re interesting. The current problem with academic work is its nearly exclusive reliance on aggregates, and the fact that aggregates reinforce the goals of totalitarian state action.

    3) Academics are more likely to rely upon multiple sources of empirical data, and unfortunately, independents are not. Independents are more likely driven by the desire of something to be true, and to rely upon confirmation biases. Although, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. It’s a natural process of research and development.

    WHY PRAXEOLOGY?

    Praxeology protects against necessary errors of information loss in any process of aggregation. Aggregation exposes limits to praxeological analysis.

    There are plenty of people working with collections of data. There are too few praxeologists working on the interpretation of data. That is because analysis of aggregates hides involuntary transfers, and praxeological analysis exposes involuntary transfers. As such, Praxeology is a libertarian, and Aggregates a totalitarian methodology.

    That’s why there are fewer praxeologists. In academica, it’s against the status quo.

    WHAT WOULD ACADEMIC RESEARCH LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE MAJORITY RULE STATE?

    If the ‘government’ were constructed to allow exchanges, not majority rule, then academics would search for beneficial exchanges between groups rather than optimums that are always for the benefit of one group at the expense of another.

    In other words, solutions proposing an optimum are always “BAD” . Because they deprive us of that which could be mutually beneficial means even if we have independent ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-02 05:49:00 UTC

  • ANTI SCIENTIFIC LEFT

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308724-1THE ANTI SCIENTIFIC LEFT

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-27 07:10:00 UTC

  • DO HUMANS HAVE LITTLE BODY HAIR? Because we can outrun every other animal on ear

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3082/why-do-humans-have-so-little-body-hairWHY DO HUMANS HAVE LITTLE BODY HAIR?

    Because we can outrun every other animal on earth. And doing all that running requires a lot of heat dissipation. Humans just run prey until they are exhausted and kill them when it’s easy. Combine that with spears and not many creatures have a lot of chance. And besides. We spread with fish first and foremost. So take your fish oil. 🙂

    (I can’t comment on Cecil’s site directly because Ukrainian IP’s are justifiably banned from commenting on a lot of blogs.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-06 10:48:00 UTC

  • EVOLVE QUICKLY : BUT WITH CONSEQUENCES

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/WE EVOLVE QUICKLY : BUT WITH CONSEQUENCES

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-03 04:50:00 UTC

  • WANT ONE (Hat tip to Josh Brantley) General argument is that no one will build a

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/16/mercedes-benz-ener-g-force-concept-is-a-g-class-for-the-future/I WANT ONE

    (Hat tip to Josh Brantley)

    General argument is that no one will build anything for popular consumption with tires that large. Because it means a larger axle, larger breaks, higher center of gravity, and very expensive wheels and tires. The Jeep Forty concept has met with the same criticism from the factory: no one will build it because even as an option it will be priced out of the market. Although, given what a G-wagon costs, I don’t think that’s a good argument for a mercedes. And given that it could be released in a military version, I think it’s worth building.

    Keep hope alive.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-17 02:59:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE VS SCIENTISM AND RELIGION : THE PROBLEM OF DEMOCRACY There is a fundamen

    SCIENCE VS SCIENTISM AND RELIGION : THE PROBLEM OF DEMOCRACY

    There is a fundamental difference between those who possess the capacity for utilizing reason, those who possess the capacity for comprehending reason, and those who possess the capacity for utilizing rules and conventions, and those who lack the capacity for utilizing any of the above.

    To suggest that science and reason are sufficient devices for cooperation and social order in a division of knowledge and labor, is UNSCIENTIFIC because it is contrary to both evidence and reason.

    Science becomes the religion of scientism and no better than mysticism if it supposes universal application and utility.

    The question remains: why must we advocate one unified means of argument and comprehension, across all peoples within a polity? The answer is that under the irrational religion of secular democracy – those institutions which we currently live under – we suppose unanimity of ability in order to justify the use of state power.

    If you can understand this, you will understand that the problem is not one of science versus religion – which in principle can produce the same ends. But between the false premise of universalism and equality mandated the the institution of democracy.

    It is our political system that is the cause of our problems.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-19 02:26:00 UTC