Statistics have been reminding more of an old theme of ours Nom - censorship. We have a '9' connection by the way - it was my best position in rugby. As far as I can tell, scientists use numbers on a pretty fair basis, at least until they become functionaries of business. Much of the rest of number use strikes me as rhetoric connected with the abuse of power. Numbers are often thrown about in argument that is really about metaphor and myth. The censorship element seems to be that you can only take part in the debates with the number skills, with such issues as why we should allow those 'with the numbers' control and even restrict participation on this basis.
We seem to have lost any grip we may have had on convention. Money, foe Aristotle, was a convention because we could choose to ignore it tomorrow. These days, we know money (97%) of it is brought into being by banks lending it at interest. We also know this doesn't have to be the case and government could issue it debt-free. Government, of course, could be us or a genuinely representative embodied form of us. There is some prattle about on this called positive money or Modern Monetary Theory. I'm not much concerned with the literature as the ideas have been around a long time. The principle is really that we have ceded control of organising capacity for no real reason. I currently think the mainstream insane and don't know how to get the heresy across. The reasoning here is that we can do sensible stuff, like building green energy capacity, or a new work ethic not related to fear of poverty and real poverty. Numbers become lies in a virtual system with such as unemployment at 6.8% but one in six men of working age with no job. This is going on when we have technology (and real statistical method on samples) that could let us report on what we are actually doing. Years back, when we did the footslog version of what could now be online, we found unemployment in Woking (leafy, well-to-do England) at 18% and 58% in Govan (crap Glasgow). So what's the role of bullshit numbers in preventing 'practical data'? A nominal problem ... On Saturday, 7 June 2014 17:33:37 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_of_Nine > > The gal had a rough time of it, the gentleman in me thinks (don't know > why) that she deserved better..... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Christie > > reminded me of Julie Christie...... > > This"numbers" discussion gets into the distinction between the > "representational language" and the "thing represented".....in Mathematics, > as in most all other "language" systems... people have a tendency to get > caught up in the "language-formal" seeming connections between the numbers, > and forget about the actual work that they (numbers) are supposed to be > doing in tracking the behavior of the "things", themselves.... hence you > get "statisticians" ( mostly in the "social" or "human" sciences) who look > for "number trends" or formulas that could "logically" be extrapolated as > "predictive" of certain results.....Like in economics.....sometimes the > "formulas" aren't all that "sound"... other times, the "things" being > counted just don't "behave" as expected, for their own reasons.....which > the "math practitioner" did not take into account.... > > I think you and I are in pretty much agreement, Archytas... > > Odds.... on a horse race.... > > > http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2088263-belmont-stakes-odds-2014-final-predictions-on-latest-vegas-betting-lines > > Maybe I'll get "lucky" on No. 9...... > > On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:12:26 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> The answer can be found here Nominal - >> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/Digitsum0.htm - though we await, in >> baited breath, for you to tell us what this has to do with the price of >> fish. Were you once 8 of 9 and hence on top of Seven (lucky man)? >> >> I have been thinking of late on the relations between anarchism and >> science; specifically why economics is such obfuscatory rot. Anarchy at >> its best seeks to remove mystification, and though science gets into >> equations and numbers that get tough, these let us do things like firing a >> complex catapult build to Mars. Economics just seems to be a system that >> tell us we can't do this and that because money will be screwed and should >> shut up when we can't talk in numbers and approved bible language. Perhaps >> endlessly repeating sums that add up to 9 will turn one economist? Unless >> one needs the initial condition of nominal9? >> >> >> On Thursday, 5 June 2014 23:17:44 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>> >>> examples: >>> >>> 9x1=9...9+0=9 >>> 9x2=18...1+8=9anrchu >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> 9x3=27...2+7=9 >>> 9x4=36...3+6=9 >>> >>> etc. .... ad infinitum (?)though >>> >>> Is 9.... "nominal" number (?) .... HAR >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
