Main page of Sciforum is divided into Sections, the first being "Science." There you find the forum called "Comparative Religions" but not the forum "Business & Economics" - This seems backwards to me. Admittedly Economics is the "Dismal Science" and Business is as much art as science. But the only science associated with Religion I know of is the dis-proofs of some religious claims. For example that the sun stood still in the sky for Joshua (I think it was) to have more time for a battle to finish. Swapping the locations of these two forums would seem, to me at least, to make the structure of Sciform's Sections more logical. The forum called "Politics" is in the section division called "World" - Certainly, "Comparative Religions" belongs there too. Most of what is discussed in “Politics,” has little to do with World as it is national in nature, but much of the comparison of different religions is a comparison of different world cultures. Let try to be more logical and switch these two forum's locations in sections.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Luckily you've no real power.
"Does that mean your think "Comparative Religion" is more a science than "Business and Economics"? Or just better to leave a long standing illogical placement alone?
Economics is surely not a science, unfortunately it's hardly an art. It's better described as "Standing in an opaque bubble trying to go through a maze based on things that randomly hit the bubble." That's by the best economists. Comparative religion can be done as scientifically as Linguistics, with similar techniques. Unfortunately no one here is apt towards doing so.
It is certainly taught in colleges as one - books full of graphs (more so than most physics books!) and equations etc. It is very frequently called "the dismal science" as admittedly not as exacting as physics. There is very little science one can bring to, for example, "God favors four wives as better than only one." etc. except the "social sciences" and they have IMHO a weaker claim to being science than economics does. I happen to have a daughter who is a partner in a modest size investment firm. (All clients need to be willing to lose at least 15 million dollars, without excessive complaint in hopes of gain.) She gets quite a few journals that are concerned with "risk management" etc. - The math at time is difficult for me to follow and I got thru Quantum Mechanics with relative ease. Hell, even the calculation of simple things like mortgage payments or the present value of future incomes is more complex and scientific than anything you will find in "comparative religion." I dare you to try to follow all the math in one issue of CFA journal on "risk managent." We will probably need to agree to disagree on this, but I hope you see why I hold he POV I do.
I think you are confusing stock pricing with economics. For example the power company's economist, more that its electrical engineers, designs (selects the wire size and towers of) a new transmission line. First cut procedure is simple, compared to risk management, which is the second cut at transmission line design: The wire size increases until the current value of the future energy loss avoided does not equal the current value of incremental cost of the loan payments to pay for the larger wire size.* Then the mechanical engineers get to help select the towers as the economist may not know how strong they need to be to hold up the wire he has chosen. Economic is very definitely a science, but agreed pricing stocks is more an art than science. ------------------- *The data required for these calculations is not firm like the boiling point of water, but comes from complex economic models. The "second cut" risk managment typically will include parametric explorations of the impact of minor changes in the assumptions in these models on the first cut candidates for the new transmission line. They are looking for a risk minium in a multi-dimentional space. Probably it is found with complex n-dimentional differential equations instead of trial and error. Again try to read the CFA Journal. Don't try to tell me that economic is not a science - only ignorance of what economics is causes that.
Glad you said "keep." - I have been "off balance" for years. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would not want people to think sciforums had the power to make me this way (obsessive compulsive about logic). PS - Many posters here do, however, help keep my compulsion in full force by providing horrible examples of ill-logic. I believe in giving credit where it is due. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am the self apointed Sheriff of Nonsense and that is usually not only crazy but ill logical.
