Both the development of scientific hypotheses and testing them fall under the category of expanding the general knowledge base. Also, both research areas identified are at the fundamental level. Expanding the general knowledge base about the fundamental facts of nature is an inherently valuable activity.
Dan_Moore
Karma: 286
I’m also having trouble connecting the dots between the functionalist position that the Holocaust was caused by mid-level Nazi bureaucrats and the assertion that the Holocaust would not have happened were it not for the war.
Bill thinks the war was avoidable. Bill thinks the Holocaust would not have happened were it not for the war, and that some of the Holocaust was a reaction to actual Jewish subterfuge and abuse.
Here’s the problem: everything Bill has said is either true, a matter of serious debate, or otherwise a matter of high likelihood and reasonableness.
I wouldn’t classify the above statements as either true or likely/reasonable. As to the statements being seriously debated, please provide a link or something.
You’re ugly.
I would call that an opinion. A pejorative one.
Also not likely to be relevant to any serious discussion I would ever have on the internet.
I agree that lofty disdain tends to be rewarded with karma points on this board. Also, rudeness when you are in the minority is a karma loser. I prefer to think of karma points on this board as measuring a person’s covariance with the group opinion. So, if you find the group opinion optimal, you should try to maximize karma points.
I’m planning on stating a personal policy of posting that I intend to follow on a different board. Basically, I will refrain from using pejoratives, or ‘one-off’ pejoratives. However, stating facts are always in-bounds, no matter how unflattering they are to some. An example of a ‘one-off’ pejorative is to call someone’s argument ‘nonsense’; the implication being that the person is nonsensical. It’s in the vein of Crocker’s Rules, but slightly different.
Why I plan to do this:
I think that people engaged in internet discussions should be given the benefit of the doubt that they sincerely believe what they are saying (without evidence to the contrary). So, it’s overly harsh to go off on someone on the internet because their opinion differs from yours. If you wouldn’t behave that way IRL, you shouldn’t on the internet either. Also, if people know you will be sticking to the facts, they will be less inclined to engage in distracting flames.
This is purely a tactical decision, as I have presented an alternative hypothesis to a dogma that is cherished on that board, and plan to expand on that. Thus, I am in the minority. So, I won’t follow this policy because I believe I am nicer or better than others, but rather out of intelligent self-interest. So, I will be turning the other cheek, but I hope to use that to my advantage later.
I made it halfway through the comments thinking this post was about the gravitational constant.
It seems to me that it’s fine to attack an existing model; however, you should then present an alternative model that does a better job empirically. I don’t think the latter has been accomplished.
I concur. Plus, the St. Petersburg paradox was the impetus for Daniel Bernoulli’s invention of the concept of utility.
Being risk-averse with respect to wealth utility is reasonable, and is empirically verified to be the case with most people. Wealth utility is a special case of the more general concept of utility regarding outcomes. Risk-averseness is reasonable for wealth utility because the risk is personal. The risk that the donation with the highest expected saving of lives in fact saves fewer lives than another donation is not a personal risk. So, I agree that, assuming accurate information about the probabilities, you should donate to get the maximum expected bang for the buck.
Also, in my experience, I buy stuff all the time, but I rarely sell anything. If someone asked to buy my toaster, I would decline. I know it works. If I replaced it with the proceeds of the sale, I might get a lemon.
Holding that the efficacy of homeopathics can never be established with any reasonable certainty != assigning a success chance of 50%.
passable?
Why are some unit systems “dimensionless”, and others not?
Some ratios are dimensionless because the numerator and denominator are in the same dimension, so they cancel. for example, a P/E (price to earnings) ratio of a stock. The numerator & denominator are both in $ (or other currency).
Studying for the Level 2 (of 3) Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) exam in early June.
In addition to hopefully getting a valuable credential, I’m learning about finance stuff.
Still in the planning stages regarding an article about the fair value of internal non-traded liabilities such as bank deposit liabilities. I’m hoping to show that a temporal dimension can be added to the concept of (wealth) utility in a consistent way.
Upvoted. In my opinion, the literature on risk-averse agents is logically consistent, and being risk-averse does not imply irrationality. I agree with Vaniver’s comments. Also, humans are, on average*, risk averse.
*For example, with respect to markets, ‘market clearing’ average in a Walrasian auction sense.
I think homoskedasticity has more intriguing possibilities as a desired-for attribute that begins with ‘homo.’
A space between variable & operator would help.
the ability to trade X for Y at an exchange rate of 0.95Y for 1X, and Y for Z at an exchange rate of 0.95Z for 1Y, and Z for X at an exchange rate of 0.95X for 1Z
The above set of exchange rates is problematic. Thinking of X, Y & Z as currency units, you have Y > X, Z > Y, and X > Z—not possible. You would be unlikely to encounter this set of exchange rates.
This seems like a reasonable approach. The reason for the downvote could force a defamatory statement, which I prefer to avoid. Otherwise, you are right that dragging in a downvote mention doesn’t add anything to just saying what you want to say. Thanks for the comment, by the way.
I was thinking that upon downvoting, maybe an option (not a requirement) should be given to state a reason why. Then I realized that there is no need to program such a thing; this option exists already.
(+1) I rarely downvote, but from now on, I will accompany any downvote with a reply stating “-1: reason for downvote.”
Red meat adds a literal sizzle to research papers.