[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

Re: Structure vs Substance?

Subject: Re: Structure vs Substance?
From: Dan Emory <danemory -at- primenet -dot- com>
To: "Sharon Burton-Hardin" <sharonburton -at- earthlink -dot- net>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:30:38 -0700

At 02:04 PM 6/12/00 -0700, Sharon Burton-Hardin wrote:

>From the Barnes and Noble Outline of Economics (the text I have handy):

<quote>The primary aim, then, of economics is an explanation of _how_ an
economic system operates-- that is, how are scarce means of productions
allocated to satisfy human wants of varying importance? Some of the problems
are as follows: How are choices made with regard to the kinds and quantities
of goods produced? How are decisions reached with regard to the placement of
individuals in different production positions and to their remuneration? Are
goods and services made available to individuals on the basis of their
needs, or on the basis of their contribution and remuneration as producers?
Are jobs always available for willing workers? What is the role of
government in the process of allocation? </quote>

=============================================
The quote describes the objective of the Science of Economic, which
is to provide explanations of economies.

My statement doesn't conflict at all with that quote.
When you analyze the stated objective, you have to conclude
that the only way to achieve it is to collect data, validate the
data in some way, and then analyze the data. This is
the scientific method. My signature block contains this
statement: Nullius in Verba. It has been the motto of the
Royal Society of London since 1667 when it was founded by
Charles II. A loose translation of it would be "Don't take anyone's
word for it." What the motto meant to the founders of the Society
was that anecdotal descriptions were an unacceptable basis for
advancements in science. It was from that premise that the scientific
method evolved.

Let me put it another way: If you're an economist and you
are bucking and winging it as opposed to analyzing
valid data to arrive at your conclusions and predictions,
you can't expect any respectable government or business
(the main clients of economists after all) to take you seriously.
====================
| Nullius in Verba |
====================
Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory -at- primenet -dot- com
10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
majordomo -at- omsys -dot- com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.





References:
Re: Structure vs Substance?: From: Sharon Burton-Hardin

Previous by Author: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
Next by Author: An Alternative to Conditional Text
Previous by Thread: Re: Structure vs Substance?
Next by Thread: Re: Structure vs Substance?

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads