Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kormac who wrote (7081)	10/13/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Seppo, "Man has made a grave mistake in believing that the methods that are so powerful in physical sciences can be taken over to social sciences and that they work. Indeed, the historical approach is much better, as it incorporates subtleties that long and continuous thought can only bring." Seppo, to elaborate with my spin: Econometrics is the study of history by math. Despite the power of the human brain, we still can only handle the analysis of a small fixed number of relationships. This comes from psychology. To be successful an economist needs strong math and a keen sense of history. For example, another long standing rule for economists... "Does it past the sniff test." If a logical case for your result set can not be made, the model is wrong. Determining "logical" is the difference between the leading thinkers and doers. That is, as I read, the intelligence in your quote: "Indeed, the historical approach is much better, as it incorporates subtleties that long and continuous thought can only bring." Regards, Lee

To: kormac who wrote (7081)	10/13/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: kormac	Respond to of 9980

Stich, I had skipped some posts and did not see your reference to this article when I wrote my post on fluid flow. It was a coincidence that this happened, brought about by my own field being fluid dynamics. Don't be taken by a specious analogy. Economics and fluid dynamics have nothing in common; the latter is known through the study of the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations; the former by quite a bit different type of differential equations that have many adjustable constants and likely to have many terms missing that relate to psychology. Mathematical psychology suffers from the same problems, even more so. As I said before, the model building may well lead to great folly. Regards, forbes.com

To: kormac who wrote (7081)	10/13/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: Stitch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Seppo, OT <<Man has made a grave mistake in believing that the methods that are so powerful in physical sciences can be taken over to social sciences and that they work. >> Many thanks for your fascinating comments on the theory of chaos and the misguided application of scientific laws in querying human nature. However I am not sure I would indict "man" per se for falling to the temptation to attempt to explain the precipitous nature of human endeavor and behavior. Firstly not all scientists believe that natural law can be applied. Einstein himself had a deeply spiritual facet to his make up in which he seemed to understand that there was a limit to the questions that could reasonably be asked. (An excellent book on this topic is "Einstein's God" written by Robert Goldman.) Secondly I find it very easy to sympathise with those that would search for the answers through the empirical sciences. They do occasionally find a great deal that may help us cope with certain phenomena heretofore that have been elusive. The best example I have is a brother who is engaged in research that points to a pre natal virus as a major cause of schizophrenia. It was not all that long ago that those who evidenced this behavior were thought to be possessed. I wonder if market volatility has anything to do with a virus. Perhaps our metaphor of "Asian Contagion" is not so far off? <G> Best, Stitch