Are you a Renaissance Man?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The study of the natural sciences and the study of human action are completely different. They operate in different directions. In the study of, for example, physics, the fundamental "axioms" by which the universe operates are unknown . . . . The study of human action flows in the opposite direction. Man can directly apprehend the axioms of human action by introspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree here, and unfortunately I will have to do some "philosophizing" in order to do so. Since you mentioned economics, please prove to me one of the laws of human action that supports economics. I can guarantee you won't be able to, if for no other reason than that knowledge itself is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it seems like it would be impossible to "prove" anything to you because you are deliberately contrarian, and turn every discussion into some vague philosophical mumbo-jumbo so that you never have to defend, or indeed have, a coherent position nor lose an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I can also give you one less esoteric reply. Are you completely content with your life? Is everyone else that you know completely content with their lives? Hell, is anybody that you know completely content? I would certainly have to reply in the negative to each question. But if we are indeed capable of knowing for certain the laws that govern ourselves, why have so few people "solved" themselves? Why does humanity espouse so many differing religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that axioms of human action exist (like, "Humans act purposefully to relieve perceived unease") does not guarantee that people understand them. Nor does understanding the laws of economics guarantee that you will be happy, if say, you aren't getting laid. That's like asking, "Well, if physicists claim to understand this "gravity" thing, why can't they all levitate?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other fundamental difference between natural sciences and the science of human action is that in the study of human action, experiments can not be repeated, nor can variables be isolated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely true. First off, it is pretty hard to completely isolate a single variable or exactly reproduce an experiment in the physical sciences. Second, you don't meditate, do you? A much higher degree of isolation and accurate reproduction is possible in human affairs than you are probably aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Experiments in the physical sciences are easily repeatable and variables easily isolated. Experiments in human behavior can never be repeated, nor can variables be isolated. Imagine trying to repeat an experiment in human behavior; the result of the experiment clearly depends on the state of the knowledge of the subject. Since you cannot "reset" the subject back to his earlier state of knowledge, the new experiment is a different one. "Meditation" has nothing to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it has largely been to the (dramatic) detriment of the social sciences that over the last 80 odd years people have attempted to treat them like the physical sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you seem to imply that you think it would somehow be to the good of the natural sciences if we treated them like the social sciences? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS. Life does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Disprove me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply put, energy gradiants can drive systems to higher order at the expense of higher disorder elsewhere. This does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life no more "opposes" the 2nd law than do snow flakes.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wasn't really claiming that it does. I was just offering up an example assumption for the sake of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't actually make an argument. You just waved your hands around and strung some words together to make sentences that don't really have any meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you wanted to go into it further, you'd probably be surprised how much defining life forms as systems that decrease local entropy would accord with your intuition of what life is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which does not "oppose the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

Again, it seems like you are less interested in having a discussion than engaging in the type of warm-fuzzy philosophical masturbation for which I have little truck, so, have a nice life.

[BigPoppa]

Sounds like you're as close to "Renaissance Man" as most will ever get.

Knowledge today is too specialized to ever have someone be a stone expert in multiple fields. Even Feynman was really only a dabbler outside of physics.


Edit: Gotta love someone who is willing to test himself against experts in any field, but plans on arguing them into the ground and getting them to admit that "knowledge does not exist" while setting the rules so he cannot possibly lose. [Hint: It's not a debate if only you get to ask questions and only you decide when it's over, it's an interrogation]

[Colt McCoy]

I don't know if you qualify as a renaissance man, but you dress like you spend some time at the renaissance festival if that matters. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mj12]

I think about this a lot. I am good at many many things, yet exceptional at nothing. I console myself by thinking that I am exceptional because of this fact. I think to myself that I am probably in the top 95ish% in the fields of athletics, academics and arts and this combined is very rare and it makes me feel better.

[Borodog]

What can I say. We got married on the beach.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
What can I say. We got married on the beach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that a puffy shirt?