Display:
No, I mean LESS.  In physics, concepts such as gravity, to say nothing of relativity and quantum mechanics, are all still highly controversial and in some ways contradictory concepts over which physicists are in much greater dispute than economists are over things such as "fundemental theorems of welfare economics."
by santiago on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 10:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well Even among Physicists, Gravity isn't contraversial, they may not be able to explain it, but they're fairly convinced it's there.

"fundemental theorems of welfare economics."  less so.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 10:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, the fundamental theorems aren't disputed: they're quite elegant and not all that difficult. The applicability of the underlying assumptions is another matter entirely ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 10:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And even if you do accept the underlying assumptions, what they have to say is overhyped, IMHO.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 09:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They are not. There are no disagreements on gravity, relativity or quantum mechanics. Even the youngest of these theories has been definitively formulated for 60 or 70 years now, and they are regularly tested, both by experienced experimenters who measure the various constants for the benefit of the world, and every year by lowly physics students who learn the basics of labwork. The final arbiter is an endless repetition of experiments, never concensus or theoretical beauty.

That didn't stop scientists from finding new formulations to replicate the effects of these theories (eg Feynman who was quoted in another comment, was a bit late), and it doesn't stop particle physicists from disagreeing about the interpretation of their experimental results, and inventing new particles or defining new fields of study as needed. Speculation about the true nature of physics is rampant, but never to be taken too seriously.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 10:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series