|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Must be nice to work in a scientific field where all opposing experimental data can be dismissed.
There, FTFY.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm often wondering why when something falls within the scope of economics, people generally don't care what the field has to say.
So I present data which shows an approach that works, fully. In the real world, no less. You simply brush it under the rug. Claim that my data is literally fakenews and I can take whatever conclusion I want from the data I have. Because it's a society related thing, and I have to take these facts with a grain of salt.
Yet I have to accept wholeheartedly that your theory says my present, real world situation does not work or is not working. When I can see it working as intended, and providing excellent results at the same time. In real time.
So, instead of trying to see why it actually works so well and improve/perfect it where needed, and want to implement as much of it as you can into your own system (which we can see does not equal it in results), you bash it? That makes truly no sense to me.
What would make sense to me is if you bring up some kind of facts, not just theory, as to why the Finnish system is no good.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I should clarify that it isn't the case that facts within the scope of some economic phenomenon typically point towards one thing. They usually point towards opposite things at the same time. But people tend to only see one side of it due to things like confirmation bias and selection bias.
Exactly why I believe that economics is not a science
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster
|
Reply With Quote