Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Restriction of Economics forum to Mainstream Economics

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. I'm giving an example of the type of source that simply doesn't hold enough weight to be considered in a realistic tone.

    If you are not up for continuing debate, then perhaps you were indeed guilty of soapboxing, since you are not going to stand by the claims you presented.

    The faeries book and blog is that of Dr Doreen Virtue.

    Are we now both appealing to authority in hoping to dismiss valid criticisms? I don't pretend for a second that I value Ms Virtue's PHD btw. And certainly not her views on medicine.


    Extraordinarily related. You cannot claim 'easily empirical support' as some form of defence against soapboxing, when the support that you have offered is barely questionable in terms of quality.
    I think anyone reading my post, can see that I'm not up for debating it on this thread - given that it's not what this thread is about - and I can't exactly continue debating it on Economics, when I've been mod-warned off the thread...you're really making clear that you're trying to engage in pot-shots against me.


  • Options
    #63
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,864 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I'm not on Chrome: can someone count the number of times that you've used the words smear and censorship?

    Or "This thread" - if this thread is about everything but you and the topic of Heterodoxical economics why do you drag both up so often by trying to cry that any disagreement with you is a "smear"


  • Options
    #64
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    I don't see how people can defend the notion that heterodoxical views can't be allowed. It's really weird.

    Even if the ideas are wacky, so what? It could be interesting to discuss them, if only to show their flaws.

    All while being civil, of course.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I think anyone reading my post, can see that I'm not up for debating it on this thread - given that it's not what this thread is about - and I can't exactly continue debating it on Economics, when I've been mod-warned off the thread...you're really making clear that you're trying to engage in pot-shots against me.

    I've not personalised anything, nor taken any pot-shots.

    I've shown that your contention that you are not soapboxing as you offered support is weak, given that the support offered was in no way sufficient to make the claim that you had done - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

    I've questioned whether an appeal to authority is sufficient to do allow you do so either.

    The only way that these are 'pot shots' are if you are considering yourself the argument, and not recognising that the 'attack' is on the arguments that you are presenting as a defence.


  • Options
    #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Saipanne wrote: »
    I don't see how people can defend the notion that heterodoxical views can't be allowed. It's really weird.

    Even if the ideas are wacky, so what? It could be interesting to discuss them, if only to show their flaws.

    All while being civil, of course.

    I personally don't think that there should be any reason why heterodoxical views shouldn't be allowed. They should indeed be encouraged and understood.

    I don't think that that's what's going on here though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I personally don't think that there should be any reason why heterodoxical views shouldn't be allowed. They should indeed be encouraged and understood.

    I don't think that that's what's going on here though.

    Ok, maybe I need to see the thread in question.


  • Options
    #68
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've not personalised anything, nor taken any pot-shots.

    I've shown that your contention that you are not soapboxing as you offered support is weak, given that the support offered was in no way sufficient to make the claim that you had done - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

    I've questioned whether an appeal to authority is not sufficient to do allow you do so either.

    The only way that these are 'pot shots' are if you are considering yourself the argument, and not recognising that the 'attack' is on the arguments that you are presenting as a defence.
    If you look back, I didn't say anything about me soapboxing - you're trying to personalize the thread and make it about me though, precisely because you want to take pot-shots.

    If someone is accusing another person of soapboxing, the burden of proof is on them.


  • Options
    #69
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Saipanne wrote: »
    I don't see how people can defend the notion that heterodoxical views can't be allowed. It's really weird.

    Even if the ideas are wacky, so what? It could be interesting to discuss them, if only to show their flaws.

    All while being civil, of course.

    I'm not sure if you've had time to read the thread yet, but if not, I've explained the notion in a few posts on the first 2 pages.


  • Options
    #70
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    I also partially summarized the early part of the thread here, though I don't know if andrew would fully agree with this summary:
    Me and andrew have a divide over what constitutes mainstream economics (I insist it is this - largely represented by the neoclassical school of economics, far more than just methodology/priors, it is a whole ideology/framework, which is much more political) - and we have a divide over whether Heterodox (which by definition is not mainstream) economics has empirical validity (I insist some of it does, and have provided proof) - and thus there is disagreement on whether restricting discussion of Heterodox economics, will lead to excluding empirically valid discussion from Economics (I insist that it would), which would be censorship.


  • Options
    #71
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Here is a blog about healing powers of fairies.

    Here are some books about healing powers of fairies (1, 2)

    Should medical issues fora allow discussion of the healing powers of fairies?

    The problem is the healing power of fairies isn't science. Like economics. It has no empirical validity. Except as a placebo.

    Given that economics isn't a science can we

    1) move it out off the science super forum. To social science.
    2) accept there are different schools, none of them science, and allow these schools in the general "academic" economics thread or allow a neoclassicical and post-Keynsian sub fora etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    andrew wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you've had time to read the thread yet, but if not, I've explained the notion in a few posts on the first 2 pages.

    Ok thanks. I'm up the walls now though.


  • Options
    #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    If you look back, I didn't say anything about me soapboxing - you're trying to personalize the thread and make it about me though, precisely because you want to take pot-shots.

    If someone is accusing another person of soapboxing, the burden of proof is on them.
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Soapboxing is when you don't engage in debate, and only post to push a particular view
    .....
    At the end of the day: Views that are easily empirically supportable, and which are actually debated (not merely pushed/soapboxed), should be fair game and not treated as a problem.
    ..........
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What support did your theory on the supply/demand issue from the post that started this have?

    Please be succinct.

    link to thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057521910
    nesf wrote: »
    Not really. The problem was the how not the what. People weren't discussing economic theory they were shouting from soapboxes that they knew the one and only truth. This isn't useful for having any kind of reasonable discussion.



    Look, bluntly what I did research in in economics was very far from the orthodox so you don't need to convince me that mainstream economics has holes in it and that models are pushed that really we should know better than to push but the problem is threads like this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057521910

    Someone asks an obvious homework question and you barge in with some half-understood stuff about some Leaving Cert/first year undergraduate "lies to children" because you need to "teach the controversy." This isn't useful, it isn't the place for it and you're not doing it in a way that will generate useful discussion. This is what I mean by pushing an ideology, I'm talking about behaviour in threads not whether or not what you're talking about is an ideology or not.
    .


  • Options
    #74
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Where did I say anything about me soapboxing? I think you need to read that again...

    If you want to claim I am soapboxing, provide an argument or evidence - and then take it up with a mod, please not on this thread, thanks.


  • Options
    #75
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    When someone asks a question - even if it is obviously homework-related - it's perfectly valid to answer it by pointing out the flaws with the concept they are learning - and that doesn't impede anybody else from answering their question from an orthodox view.

    There's no orthodox or unorthodox view on what the definition of the Law of Supply means for the purposes of sitting exams.


  • Options
    #76
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    nesf wrote: »
    There's no orthodox or unorthodox view on what the definition of the Law of Supply means for the purposes of sitting exams.
    The thread didn't state anything about exams etc. - and discussion on the forum isn't limited to answers that go into exams; the questions and designated-answers in exams, actually do reflect the ideology they are based on (e.g. can reflect mainstream economic ideology).


  • Options
    #77
    Dav
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    I'm not at all in favour of any valid topic's discussion being shut down. It seems to me the problem is KomradeBishop's soap-boxing on the topic rather than the topic itself. His soap-boxing here on Feedback certainly suggest to me that this is just who he is and if he can't rein it in, then his time here on Boards is very limited because no one has the energy to deal with another Spirit of the Seventies.

    Solution: allow the discussion and ban KomradeBishop from the forum.

    End of discussion.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement