fossilesque

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Uncritical Support

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago

Probably, it grows everywhere. Ribwort husks.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 11 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Psyllium husk is the bees knees tho

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Can't take your dick out in space, we've gone over this.

 
 
 
332
submitted 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 12 hours ago

This is why the joke is partially tongue in cheek. ;)

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 12 hours ago

Our reptilian overlords can finally exist in the open.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The thagomizer costs extra.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

That’s just it, though. Outliers are treated fundamentally differently between them, they are treated as bugs in economics, but as features in medicine.

If a "universal" drug fails for a specific group, medicine views that outlier as a falsification that proves the rule is incomplete. They use the exception to fix the theory.

Foundational economics does the opposite: it treats axioms like "rational actors" as holy scripture, so when people don't behave like the math says they should, the economists just dismiss them as "irrational" and keep the model exactly the same.

Even if we don’t know the mechanism behind Tylenol, we can still falsify whether or not it works. You can't falsify a "rational actor" because the moment someone does something weird, you just move the goalposts. Medicine is trying to map the territory; foundational economics insists the map is right and the territory is just acting up. It's barely based in reality.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Namely, the scientific method relies on inductive reasoning and foundational economics relies heavily on deductive reasoning.

The difference isn't the data itself, it's what they do with it. Medicine takes subjective, self-reported pain scales and plugs them directly into rigorous, double-blind, randomized controlled trials where they isolate variables to test a strictly falsifiable hypothesis.

Foundational economics, on the other hand, takes subjective concepts like "utility" or "rational self-interest" and uses them as unfalsifiable, deductive assumptions to guess how massive, open systems work.

Basically, you can put a new painkiller in a placebo-controlled trial to scientifically prove if it reduces that subjective pain, but you can't put a macroeconomy in a petri dish to run a controlled, repeatable experiment on supply and demand.

This difference invites a lot of woo.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Bisexual problems.

 
view more: next ›