i have come to the conclusion once again that you can safely ignore all economic babbling from anyone whose field isn't physics or pure math
-
-
Replying to @CTZN5
tend to see phys/math people make an entirely separate but equally-devastating set of errors from those made by proper economists
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @CTZN5
What I see often is phys/math people doubling down on the unrealistic formalism economists are already criticised for
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Indeed. In fact I think the original tweet is probably exactly incorrect
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I'm coming around that maybe the correct edit is "ignore all economic babbling from anyone"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Can we settle for:"Treat all figures, especially projections, with a heavy dose of skepticism. Avoid over precision when counter productive"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CouchRambo @eigenrobot and
Economics is useful.But excess math can instill overconfidence which is usually unjustified.Fundamental econ questions still have no answers
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
you guys are committing a set theory error in reading my tweet, lol. to be fair it's a really common one in english for some reason
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CTZN5 @CouchRambo and
you are reading in to my words the assertion "all physicists and mathematicians are credible on economics" but i never said this
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
perhaps you're misinterpreting me(us)? my read of your statement was strictly: ¬(physics ∨ math) ⇒ ¬(credible economics) is this correct?
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.