= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Jan. 18 - Jan. 24, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (201)
Depends on your definition of "scientific".
Markets change. What used to be true ten years ago might not be true now.
In this case it seems to mean "What Wikipedia considers scientific enough to back up a claim".
Nature changes too. In both cases I believe there are identified causal determinants of both market and natural behaviour and in both cases these can change over time. Still, the scientific process can be meta-inducted in the case of markets to identify whether, for instance, financial news or academic papers give useful tips and in what circumstances.
In fact, now I'm really curious to know about literature on that very topic.