At around 5/8/06 3:55 pm, Leigh Meyers wrote:
>
> Regarding ignorance... It's relative. I mean... you can't see the
> questions I am asking buried in my exclamations and mistakes...
>
I think I do see them, but I also urge you to proofread what you write,
just so the simple mistakes (such as confusing median and mean) do not,
as you write, bury your central argument.
That said, old Wittgenstein, well respected especially within the left,
(and also by me just for the sheer humanism), uttered some strange
things in his time about math. So perhaps one does have to dig deeper
into what one is reading, to find the truth within.
> I think others who read here do fathom at least *some* of what I am
> saying, but I don't expect anyone to neccesarily 'waste their time'
> responding to statements like:
>> The people who calculated this figure live in another universe.
>> FedWorld, where the numbers are real, and the people represented by
>> those numbers aren't.
I think I sort of get what you mean, but I can read this in multiple
ways. However it is best to leave it to you to elucidate... do you, in
the totality of your posts, differentiate between different notions of
'numbers'? Or do you question the analytical validity of the
calculations? Or are you concerned with the application of such analysis
to the real world?
We are on a list intended for discussion of a subject, economics, that
today seems to resemble more of a deductive programme than an empirical
science. So, I do understand that we has to be careful in employing the
embarrassment of riches (tools) that are made available to us.
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/
