Re: [Pen-l] Question on overdetermination

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Jim Devine wrote:

> Even though economics, political economy, and Marxism
> are not (and never will be) "sciences" by the usual standards, it's
> good to _try_ to be scientific. That is, we should think logically,
> consider evidence seriously, and try not to leave out relevant
> information.

Doyle;
Well, enough except where you say 'leave out relevant information'.   
That is a big question.  How much relevant information?  In a  
technical sense for example, a computer with a Von Neuman architecture  
is limited by the serial nature of processing.  There are two variants  
of general sorts of computer approaches, parallel architectures, and  
quantum entanglements.  Truly those entanglements are about including  
the whole thing in the solution of a scientific question.

To say differently the science of how to mine large amounts of data is  
about what to leave out of precise logical solutions or more broadly  
theories.  All of which I think render some people like Popper at a  
loss for what to say.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l