Re: Gregnews: US report proves EP lies
"Xavi Drudis Ferran" <[email protected]> Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:34:16 +0200 (CEST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.aful.patents |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> So people using phrases like "financial engineering" are not borrowing
> prestige - you are - but not them. These people read the science
> papers written by physicists studying financial markets, and take
> the scientific techniques in such papers and APPLY THEM to real world
> problems. Since the standard definition of technology is APPLIED
> science, it is very legitimate in these circumstances to use the
> phrase "financial engineering" (I will agree other uses are marketing
> bllsht).
>
These people take mathematical models from other disciplines and apply
them elsewhere, that's something typical of mathematics, ince they are
abstract
you can apply the same solution to several problems.
This has nothing to do with all fields being applied natural science, it
only has to do with applied exact science being useful in many fields, so
that
advances used (or developed in order to be used) in one field apply to
others.
In order to make applied natural science you have to watch nature to see
whether it follows your mathematical models, in order to make economics,
you have to watch markets (which I don't call "nature"*) in order to see
whether they follow your mathematical models. In order to make exact
science you just have to watch your mathematical models, in order to make
applied exact science you have to aplly those models to something. Whether
those mathematical models happen to be the same in different fields is as
pointless as whether books on different subjects, since they are all
printed on paper, make all subjects the same so that in fact there is only
one subject ("paperableology":the subject of things susceptible of being
printed on paper) and librarians are stupid.
Why don't you go found a pantheistic sect (or have you already...? )
* this is so trivial that is almost boring, but at least is useful to
remind me that "control" in controlable forces of nature may be needed, so
that c.f.o.n may be better than a.n.s. as a definition of technical. So
thanks, Greg.