oh, it's fun already... several feuds among family and friends about where to have a party, whether to have a party, whom to invite...
The joys of being a human... :)

If you don't have fun, don't do it...my motto for work for a long time.

You probably deserve a break at 70, and please do have fun.

... yep... back in the '80s, I think it was... and HE died way too early for MY taste... i'd wanted his ideas to be promulgated and accepted way more than they were (or are today).

I have a fond memory of a graph he did when writing for what I came to call "ANTI-BusinessWeek" magazine... a graph implying that whenever 'government' does something to change or provoke the economy, the real effects are not noticeable for 12-24 months or so later.

Just what was and is needed in the fruit-fly attention-span typical today in mainscream media and voters.

Oh, well... I turn 70 in two months. Won't have to up up with that shit much longer.... just gonna try to have fun....

Jealous that you've met him! He died a few years after I really started to dig into this subject with vigor vs my inherent nature.

It turns out that my mind seems to work the same way as the Freakonomics guys' do. Frequently their writing and conclusions are incredibly congruent with conclusions I've reached on my own, and often years ago! I'm a fan, too...

I've quoted and defended and proselytized Friedman over the decades, too! Met him in person, once, too. Tried to coax him into making a free-market position comment to a very liberal group and he refused. Pissed me off. Still love him. Remember, Friedman was just a wee bit pre-internet, so The Ways Experiments Can Be Run On People have changed a bit, too... :)

Being a fan, I think Milton Friedman's work is quite a bit more scientific than you describe. Perhaps we can agree that economics is immature, like chemistry in the 1600's.
The element introducing chaos into these experiments is people (sociology), and beyond the fuzzy statistical nature of people's response, the data is clouded by politics and politician's manipulating the data. I find this quite like the churches manipulation of evidence to maintain power. This complication does not mean the study is impossible or unscientific. It does contribute to complication and unscientific manipulation.

Not exactly... I've recently finished reading three of the Freakonomics books.
In their books, the authors have actually tried some experimental methods to try to discover root cause in a useful way, but from all I've seen, the Major People in Economics start with their Beliefs of How Things Should Be and then write column after column in the mainscream media trying to get everyone to agree that if Everyone Did It Their Way, All The Problems Would Be Solved...

That's not experimental, nor imnsho, 'scientific.'
Paul Krugman is one of my favorite examples.

Economics tends to be backward-looking, often inferring a driving force that supports the economic philosophies of the economists. I view most Global Warming "consensus" the same way.

Experiments in Economic Theory (scientific-style, that is) are extremely hard to create... partially because unless they're kept totally in the dark, the 'control group' would often object to their circumstances.. :)

Think your view comes from the observations that many people treat economics like astrology or religion, as beliefs, not objective cause-effect studies, developing conclusions from results of experiments (which is what all laws are...social experiments). In this I agree with you, but it need not be that way.

ummmmmm ..... well, yes, in Kirkhhoff's world ... but ...
this is another world and very few know about its beautiful
intricacies!!! -- j

p.s. how about this history explanation?:::
http://get.smarter.com/qa/science/uni...
.

MA, the sound-volume thing is the Inverse Square Law, describing how sound, light, radiation and other stuff like that spread out the energy they're carrying over increasing distances, areas or volumes (depending on what the source and the medium are.)

And the Doppler Effect describes the change in Apparent Frequency of sound, light, radio, etc., waves, depending on whether YOU or The Source are moving towards each other or apart.... the old train-whistle example.

Cheers!

Backwards... the dots represent 'incidence of cavities' versus 'sugar consumption.' Those are the Inputs to the Discussion or Question...

The line is more like a Least-Squares Fit to describe the average correlation between the two... which is the 'answer' or 'indicator' that when one increases, the other tends to increase.

Hell, I object when people call Economics "a science."
!
Ah, db... any problem with that kind of information Actually Belonging in Both Studies? :)

Hell, Stormi, I had to wait until starting Grad School for an MBA to learn one of those basics...
From the Intro To Business Law class...

The "right answer" is usually "It Depends," followed by your reasons for taking either, any or both sides of the alleged 'argument.'

Still useful in socio-political-economic-religious "discussions."

:))))))

http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#16th

Isn't the 'amplitude' of a sound wave a measure OF the degree of compression? I can go with that, but that might be my warped engineering mind... :)

Then, there's the one about the physicist, engineer and mathematician in a hotel that catches fire... :)))

R=E/I , right?
:)

Yeah, I got in the top 6% for us 65+ codgers, but I learned ALL of that 'in school'....

But I kind of question (or resent) the title, because I didn't GUESS at ANY of the questions to come up with (ALL) the Correct Answers.

Don't know how I did...my popup blocker kept the page from showing the results and when I disabled it, the page gave me an error message.
That must have been the REAL test!

Hello blarman,
12 of 12 correct! :) I found it to be a relatively easy and fun quiz. I love science. One confession: I could not recall the name of the developer of the polio vaccine, but thorough process of elimination I was able to deduce the correct choice.
Respectfully,
O.A.

They are probably referring to its appearance on an oscilloscope, which is a representation of the wave - not the wave itself.

12/12

Gee that was easy. Not a test, IMO. A test of reasoning then? How well do we do there?

Given the following two statements as premisses:
Logic is difficult, or not many students like logic.
If mathematics is easy, then logic is not difficult.

is it valid to conclude:
1)that mathematics is not easy, if many students like logic?
2)that not many students like logic, if mathematics is not easy?
3)that logic is not difficult, or mathematics is easy?
4)that mathematics is not easy, or logic is difficult?
5)that logic is not difficult, or mathematics is not easy?
6)that logic is difficult, or mathematics is easy?
7)that if not many students like logic, then (a)mathematics is not easy, or (b) logic is not difficult?

YES or NO
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

If getting 11/12 basic science questions right puts me 82% above the public I am scared.

Perfect score. No guessing necessary. Most are easy to figure out with common sense and rudimentary knowledge of basic principles.