The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Last paragraph: You can drop it, please.
So, maybe it is better that each tries to explore the other's view, if interested, and come back in a few diaries' time. I admit that this is not exactly a balanced approach since Valentin doesn't appear to be a contemplative scientist but knows your side.
I admit that this is not exactly a balanced approach since Valentin doesn't appear to be a contemplative scientist but knows your side.
What I meant by "balanced approach":
If one has been trained as a scientist and the other one in Buddhist contemplation and none knows the discipline of the other. Both can find out about the other and maybe learn from it.
If both are trained scientists but one has the vague idea (open mind) that there is merit to integrating contemplative (or other) methods into what is considered as scientific, then both don't have the same amount of work to do.
The raison d'etre of science is to provide universal answers. I find it very hard to imagine a "contemplative" approach that provides universality. That is not to say that contemplation is not interesting, but it cannot meaningfully be called science.
(Mig has a good Keynes quote saying something similar about economics and Queen Victoria...)
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But the proper place for such things as net real output and the general level of prices lies within the field of historical and statistical description, and their purpose should be to satisfy historical or social curiosity, a purpose for which perfect precision--such as our causal analysis requires, whether or not our knowledge of the actual values of the relevant quantities is complete or exact--is neither usual nor necessary. To say that net output to-day is greater, but the price-level lower, than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a similar character to the statement that Queen Victoria was a better Queen but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabeth--a proposition not without meaning and not without interest, but unsuitable material for the differential calculus. Our precision will be a mock precision if we try to use such partly vague and non-quantitative concepts as the basis of our quantitative analysis.
by Oui - Jul 24 1 comment
by Oui - Jul 18 26 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 16 5 comments
by ATinNM - Jul 13 25 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 15 5 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 14 1 comment
by Oui - Jul 12 24 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 9 27 comments
by Oui - Jul 241 comment
by Oui - Jul 202 comments
by Oui - Jul 1826 comments
by Oui - Jul 184 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 165 comments
by ATinNM - Jul 158 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 155 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 141 comment
by ATinNM - Jul 1325 comments
by Oui - Jul 1315 comments
by Oui - Jul 1224 comments
by Oui - Jul 11
by Oui - Jul 103 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jul 927 comments
by gmoke - Jul 9
by Oui - Jul 81 comment
by Oui - Jul 84 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 740 comments
by Oui - Jul 234 comments
by Oui - Jun 309 comments