Search results

Since I became a professional trainer I have encountered many people who talk about “learning” curves in a way which indicates they do not fully understand what “learning” curves are, how they are arrived at and what use to make of them. I have had queries from training officers wanting to know “what is the learning curve” for particular jobs. I have met many management students who think a “learning” curve is a statement of an absolute state of the universe in much the same way as Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion. Recently I came across a company selling synthetic work‐study data who included in their data an analysis, based on a “learning” curve, which indicated how many repetitions of the method would be necessary before the operator “learned” the job to given levels of performance. The International Labour Office's Introduction to Work Study shows a diagram of a “typical learning curve” (p. 205) but there is no discussion of the use of the curve, why it is or what it is or just how “typical” it is. It has been put in with minimal apparent understanding and minimal attempt to develop understanding. Each of the above examples demonstrates a need to make clear the background to “learning” curves and what use to make of them.

The paper addresses the puzzling phenomenon of the ubiquity of economic forecasting, of which property market forecasting is but one instance, on the one hand, and the unreliability of such forecasts, on the other hand. The paper explains why property market forecasts fail, in a non-trivial sense, and why this problem is irredeemable.

This was a conceptual paper and was based on original thought and literature review.

This paper attributes the failure of property market forecasts to the inappropriate application of the methodology of the natural sciences to the social sciences by mainstream economics. Specifically, the problem is located in the positivist philosophy and the assumptions of methodological individualism and rational choice theory underlying neoclassical economic theory.

The paper makes an original contribution by clearly showing why and how the methodology of the natural sciences, especially physics, has been applied to economics and property market analysis, why this is inappropriate and why it leads to failure. The paper introduces a debate that has hitherto been mostly confined to philosophy and mainstream economics into the property or real estate discipline and in a manner that is accessible to a non-philosophy audience.

Presents the scientific methodology from the enlarged cybernetical perspective that recognizes the anisotropy of time, the probabilistic character of natural laws, and the entry that the incomplete determinism in Nature opens to the occurrence of innovation, growth, organization, teleology communication, control, contest and freedom. The new tier to the methodological edifice that cybernetics provides stands on the earlier tiers, which go back to the Ionians (c. 500 BC). However, the new insights reveal flaws in the earlier tiers, and their removal strengthens the entire edifice. The new concepts of teleological activity and contest allow the clear demarcation of the military sciences as those whose subject matter is teleological activity involving contest. The paramount question “what ought to be done”, outside the empirical realm, is embraced by the scientific methodology. It also embraces the cognitive sciences that ask how the human mind is able to discover, and how the sequence of discoveries might converge to a true description of reality.

The purpose of this paper is to sensitize researchers to qualitative citation patterns that characterize original research, contribute toward the growth of knowledge and, ultimately, promote scientific progress.

This study describes how ideas are intertextually inserted into citing works to create new concepts and theories, thereby contributing to the growth of knowledge. By combining existing perspectives and dimensions of citations with Foucauldian theory, this study develops a typology of qualitative citation patterns for the growth of knowledge and uses examples from two classic works to illustrate how these citation patterns can be identified and applied.

A clearer understanding of the motivations behind citations becomes possible by focusing on the qualitative patterns of citations rather than on their quantitative features. The proposed typology includes the following patterns: original, conceptual, organic, juxtapositional, peripheral, persuasive, acknowledgment, perfunctory, inconsistent and plagiaristic.

In contrast to quantitative evaluations of the role and value of citations, this study focuses on the qualitative characteristics of citations, in the form of specific patterns of citations that engender original and novel research and those that may not. By integrating Foucauldian analysis of discourse with existing theories of citations, this study offers a more nuanced and refined typology of citations that can be used by researchers to gain a deeper semantic understanding of citations.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

Presents the first chapter in this work with regard to the search for new ideas and better interpretations in the growth and development of new ideas. Investigates the exchange of views between thinkers of different points of view. Invites co‐operation between various factions to investigate unification of all known sciences (natural and economic) and to include the arts. Mentions all the great thinkers in these areas and unreservedly discusses their contribution in the school of thought. Proffers that modern technology cannot and should not be slowed down and that for the social economy of human solidarity should be aimed for, to begin a new era for humanity.

This volume, sponsored by the European Society for the History of Economic Thought, was shaped at the University of Bologna where earlier drafts of the 16 essays it contains were presented at a Conference on institutions, markets and the division of labor. Like any collection of essays, especially if they come after a conference, the quality of the contributions varies, but it must be said that the average exceeds the usual standard. Moreover, although the title “Knowledge, Social Institutions and the Division of Labour” is broad enough to accommodate a diversity of subjects, there is a degree of congruity among the different contributions. The book is divided in three parts, “Rationality, Communication and Connecting Principles” (comprising four essays), “Social Interaction and Moral Sentiments” (comprising five essays) and “Division of Labour, Patterns of Interdependence and Social Institutions” (comprising seven essays).