tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post654133921055015771..comments2023-12-27T16:39:40.424+11:00Comments on Ecstathy: Fighting MathinessEfriquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08526031804261484547noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-89128545362873385672008-08-04T09:17:00.000+10:002008-08-04T09:17:00.000+10:00This post is especially important for people like ...This post is especially important for people like me who, not knowing enough about math, are more prone to be taken in by "mathiness." Thank you, my dear!<BR/><BR/>Now if only science was the type of word that could be turned into a Colbertesque catchphrase, thus enabling us to defeat untrue science with a simple word... but "scienciness" just doesn't have the same ring...Dana Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-31348124421612063532008-08-04T00:11:00.000+10:002008-08-04T00:11:00.000+10:00Bravo! You've exposed a core tactic in "lawyer sci...Bravo! You've exposed a core tactic in "lawyer science".george.whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10893495384863805805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-37314183910194566982008-07-28T23:46:00.000+10:002008-07-28T23:46:00.000+10:00Nitpick: While your point on treating nonlinear re...Nitpick: While your point on treating nonlinear relations as linear is well-taken, in this particular example I think using a linear relation is the whole point. The point on GDP versus happiness is that GDP may not measure what we would want it to measure - namely welfare. If it did, then country A with twice the GDP per capita as country B should be twice as happy as well. Sure, we need to buy that the happiness measure is cardinal, which I don't but that wasn't the point. IF the happiness measure was correct and IF GDP per capita measured welfare, then the relation should be linear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-59749263409621754902008-07-26T07:12:00.000+10:002008-07-26T07:12:00.000+10:00I'll admit I don't use the word "mathification" as...I'll admit I don't use the word "mathification" as much as I'd like. It turns out that I rarely want to talk about examples of mathification; when I run into them I just sigh inwardly and move on.Michael Lugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671307315028242949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-90141604186794719892008-07-23T15:01:00.000+10:002008-07-23T15:01:00.000+10:00Yes, I liked it too; if I could have worked that t...Yes, I liked it too; if I could have worked that term in here, I probably would have - but I didn't wander off into that area. (I noticed also that Isabel Lugo pointed at that post a while back.)Efriquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08526031804261484547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-43511108406765166752008-07-23T03:16:00.000+10:002008-07-23T03:16:00.000+10:00I also like the term mathification, which refers t...I also like the term <I><A HREF="http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2008/02/searching-for-mathification.html" REL="nofollow">mathification</A>,</I> which refers to statements that "intend to get across a true point about the real world by making a false point about mathematics." Example <A HREF="http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=694" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.com