Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- From: "ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx" <ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Nov 2005 05:44:38 -0800
>But it needs to be rigorous, doesn't it? I would think
>that means empirical, but I dunno.
I don't think the two are synonymous at all. Geometry is certainly
rigorous, but it's not empirical, it's derived a priori from a set of
postulates.
.
- References:
- The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- From: Dan in Philly
- Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- From: Les Cargill
- The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- Prev by Date: Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- Next by Date: Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- Previous by thread: Re: The Problem with Economics (was: Re: LVT: a discussion with a center/left economist)
- Next by thread: Birds of a feather
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|