
— Because he is a scientistic theorist who thinks economic theories work like physicshttps://curiouscat.me/Pebble_in_the_sky/post/1073362455?t=1585085565 …
-
-
Replying to @aPebbleInTheSky
It's funny because either the critique is that I'm pulling from Austrian takes and thus "anti-science" (because they're anti-scientism), or that I'm engaging in "scientism" because regions of academia haven't caught up to 50s era information theory.https://c4ss.org/content/52644
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @rechelon @aPebbleInTheSky
The reality is two fold: the austrians are right in the broad strokes re the limits of knowledge flows (a decidedly anti-scientism take), for what are partially reasons of actual physics (limited information capacity of brains, bandwidth of language, etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @rechelon
Austrians are wrong in knowledge flows. Like the issue with knowledge flows is not "markets" vs planning. It is hierarchies & bureaucracies. This is empirically proven. It is also why bringing up physics in a discussion about economics is fucking useless. You maek no sense
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @aPebbleInTheSky @rechelon
& deeply misuse concepts. The brain is not a computer. Your notuion of "bandwith of language" makes no sense when you study neuroscience or you know look at social psychology
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @aPebbleInTheSky
The brain is absolutely a computer, because literally everything in the physical universe is a computer. That is pretty much settled physics only disputed by cranks who misuse language to try to frame "computer" as something like a *specific* architecture of computation.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
How is that framing helpful though? What useful information does it impart?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.