Pericles
More evasion. Ho hum. I don’t know why you bother. Perhaps your sarcasm and dishonesty impresses you.

Bugsy
If your standard of proof – invincible ignorance – were applied to any other science, no science would be admitted.

An ecologist might say “Many species find it harder to make a living at the poles than at the tropics.”

“Ah no but” say smart-arse Pericles “The limits of physics cannot be defined” and sits back smugly, as if he had made some kind of meaningful objection.

“But” says Bugsy “A physicist on another planet - or a parallel universe – might be able to prove that the melting temperature of water is something different entirely.” Uh-huh. So what?

Meanwhile spindoc says “You are confusing the domains that I have in my head unexplained. No mere human could grasp the laws of nature without impermissibly crossing domains and thus trying to redefine what it is to be human.”

Honestly, you guys are making heavier weather of it than is warranted, and exposing yourselves as a chorus of braying asses in the process.

“ if a science of economics were to exist, would it be more likely or useful to be an empirical science … or … useful to be a logical science that derives it's explanations of 'human action' (whatever that's supposed to mean) from universally held axioms?”

Bugsy! I’ve been trying to establish the part before your first comma for gossake! You don’t accept it, remember?

As for the part after it, what do you think the rest of the argument has been about? It’s like you haven’t understood a word I’ve said.

“ ‘human action’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean)”
There’s that invincible ignorance again. What do you think it’s supposed to mean?

Obviously there’s no point discussing it further, because you’ve either got a mental block, or an emotional block that is preventing you from thinking straight.

I could say “I got some milk at the shop” and you guys would be telling me that the sub-atomic structure of the compounds constituting it were ultimately unknowable.

Honestly, I don't know why you're complaining about the responses you get when you ask the internet to comment about trivial conjectures.

And before you say 'it's not trivial', remember that you are asking anonymous commenters on the internet.

Sarcasm, Peter Hume? Evasion? Dishonesty?

Are you sure?

>>Pericles More evasion. Ho hum. I don’t know why you bother. Perhaps your sarcasm and dishonesty impresses you.<<

It is a fairly simple request.

Did you ask those three questions.

Did you notice the answers.

If so, what are you grizzling about.

If not, go check.

There's only one person evading here, and it sure ain't me.

Peter

You requested my response to your general thread of 1 August 2010:

I’m not sure how it relates to the debate on science and economics on this thread.

The way we conduct economic calculation is very relevant to ecological sustainability, but I can’t see how the presence or absence of economic science, depending on one’s definition, is relevant.

Whether science fits within economics or next to it and separate from it is really very ethereal, as I see it.

But the extremely dumb way that we measure GDP and calculate economic growth overall is enormously relevant.

You wrote in the other thread:

<< The hostility of many environmentalists to producing things at a profit seems misguided, because the alternative is to produce them at a loss, which uses up more resources, and is less ecologically sustainable. >>

I don’t think many environmentalists are hostile towards the profit motive. They’re hostile towards the potential environmental damage done by some economic activities.