my original formal education was in comp sci (i dropped out and later was reborn into interdisciplinary agroecology), so i came in with all of my math requirements completed, even through grad school. basically every professor and researcher i worked with on every project, i had more advanced formal math training and better fundamentals than 90% of the primary investigators and 95% of the research teams. the only ones at peer level were engineers on modeling teams.
i can say, no exaggeration, the worst math skills consistently belonged to economists. it was even a joke among them: “what do you call an accountant who is bad a mayh? an economist.”
but they loved to trot out their little model equations they used to describe relationships, but couldn’t actually be used for math. their little curves and lines along axes without values, like a playmobile car or airplane they pretend can fly by holding it aloft, moving it through space, and making engine noises.
The accounting math joke is absolutely correct. And it’s even more damning given that we accountants don’t actually do any complex math beyond what a clever 10-year-old could do.
The economists are the only “science” that runs on ceteris paribus which is fancy talk for “rotating an economy in my mind”. Even if you accept the premise of it being a science and classify it as a social science where there’s some more vibes based shit going on none of the other social sciences do this because it’s nonsense
i dropped out and later was reborn into interdisciplinary agroecology
No way, that’s awesome. I work with agroecology researchers all the time, they’re some of the coolest people I know. Never thought one you green-thumb, grass-touching wizards would be on this site.
I thought that was also the profession of that one power poster who I think has a pitbull named Sasha in a ski mask, but maybe they’re some other kind of ecologist.
I have an ambient awareness of how meaningless some of their charts and so-called models are, but do you have a good source for explaining the matter more thoroughly?
How I usually think of it: Economics as a field in bourgeois society is really just a set of assumptions at basis, and built from these models and theories that never utilize deep skills in any other field to deepen those theories. This, because it is constantly wrestling with making the basic assumptions fit to basic models which hold up to any significant amount.
So you get napkin graphs which could really be described better as “there’s a point where efficiency decreases per piece as you produce more with a given set of conditions”. But they draw it out for some reason, and try to calculate that using basic data.
But they also constantly reevaluate the conditions and how they effect how the assumptions combine/interact (oh the means aren’t being utilized well enough, so that’s why our curve fails in many cases) without ever considering a major change to basic assumptions.
This is hard on all fields–confronting failures in basic assumptions. But other fields do it eventually because their goal is explanatory power. Economics has as a goal contributing to economic success (as measured by bourgeois) above a truth about how it objectively works so they never have to confront it
If anyone’s curious, the physics in question is clearly from a quantum field theory textbook, and what this page concerns is proving a few algebraic properties of some common quantities. In other words, he’s not even mad at a page with any actual physics content on it per se, this is just math.
edit: if anyone’s curious, here’s the exact textbook chapter he’s screenshotted. https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qfthtml/S4.html
The economists arch nemesis 😄
I thought that was “evidence”, lol.
Economist puzzled at how a physicist knows what to say without being told by their benefactor
If an Economist was told that you can’t move faster than the speed of light, he’d turn around and tell you that you simply need the right kind of stimulus, in order to boost your productivity.
S Fellow Mises Institute
brother, your discipline is literally based on praxeology
The fact that some economists can explicitly reject empiricism and still be taken seriously…
I don’t know anything about physics aside from what I see/read/hear from pop-science sources, but I’m going to bet that these equations are somehow fundamental to the design of whatever device this twit used to post his anti-intellectualism bullshit.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qfthtml/S4.html found the source, you would be correct, this is a chapter about the first equation to describe quantum electrodynamics, a.k.a. how electrons work.
Oh my god, so it’s not even something esoteric, it’s literally fundamental to our entire technological world.
Kind of. Basically all modern technology could function or be understood with a much cruder/mostly classical or semi-classical understanding or knowledge of electrodynamics than actual QED provides. But for the fundamental understanding of the underlying mechanisms, yes, this is basically that.
Would be basically be at a pre-transistor stage without QED?
Not even that, transistors (at least the ones I know the foundational mechanisms of, like MOSFETs, but I am by no means an expert) can be understood perfectly well with a classical or semi-classical approach to electrodynamics. For more modern (and much less widespread and well developed) things like optical cavities or any implementation of quantum computing, QED starts playing a role, even though in my limited experience, the full blown quantum field theory approach is not needed either. QFT is fundamental physics research with little to no practical application outside of its field of research - yet. But of course, that does not invalidate the research done in the field and certainly not the mathematical foundations of it.
A glorified worldbuilder for utopian capitalists has the gall to open his mouth when his entire profession pushed deranged fantasies like this shit
I respect powerscalers more than economists
At least powerscalers base their conclusions on observations.
c/powerscaling when?
FALGSC first, then silly fantasies.
19·2 months agoGive me that E, I’ll test it for you.
Lmao.
Getting HRT by going around and bravely “testing” various supplies of estrogen.
JFC that paper is only 11 pages and the variables don’t even require the notation used-- he just wrote it that way to sound more sciency. This shit is considered peer-reviewed economics? I knew bourgeois econ was garbage, but I didn’t know it was at “dumpster fire in a septic tank” levels of fuckery.
I’ve read longer and more thought out nonsense from literary crit English professors talking about The Hobbit.
i really wish i had time to dive into physics equations that cover weird esoteric stuff like the internal structure of a Kerr black hole or alternate configurations of space-time and other stuff
it’s like spellcraft to me i just don’t have time or brain to learn it and there is no way to easily explain what a De Sitter space is to me (as an example)
