[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)
George Antony Ph 93818 wrote:
>
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
....
>
> All this is indeed theoretically possible. However, when you put together
> the error terms of the individual estimates, the calculated final number
> will become pretty meaningless.
I reply:
Please ive me an example of the range of error in a given variable,
and how you calculated it....
You continue:
.....
>
> Again, your argument assumes that the calculated human carrying capacity is
> suitable for quantitative analysis and qualifies as scientific data. I am
> not alone with my reservations about that.
I reply:
Since your alternative is to replace numeric calcualtion based on
available data with nothing, I don't think you have much of a
collective leg to stand on, analytically speaking.
You continue:
>
> to economic analysis is that it is too simplistic, speculative and so "un-
> scientific" that it is too prone to error. Weel, I have encountered few
> pieces of economic analysis that were more simplistic, speculative and
> potentially erreneous than the suggested 'estimation' of human carrying
> capacity.
I reply:
Every crystal ball gazer, astrologist, sci-fi nut, and palm reader
says the same thing.
>
> George Antony
References: