#ostrom — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #ostrom, aggregated by home.social.
-
Danke, @AwetTesfaiesus 🙏
Finde es auch als Familienvater schwierig, dass gerade auch unter Linken fossilistische Patriarchen wie #Marx (der u.a. seine Haushälterin schwängerte & mit Geld von #Engels das Kind wegschieben ließ) noch immer als wegweisend angenommen, bedeutende Ökonominnen wie Elinor #Ostrom aber ignoriert werden. Ich wünsche mir ökonomische & demographische Diskussionen im 21. Jahrhundert dialogisch, auch emanzipativ & interdisziplinär. https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/elinor-ostrom-und-diskussionen-mit-marxismus-glaeubigen/
-
We need to talk about Elinor Ostrom. 🗳️
She won a Nobel Prize for debunking the idea that common property always leads to ruin. Her work provides the empirical data for Autogestion.
If you are building a cooperative, her design principles are non-negotiable. They are the difference between a robust commons and a failed experiment.
-
@RichardJMurphy Great conversation about the #semantics of all this last weekend, with nephew's Italian wife (at #DownHouse!). She'd been taught about 'survival of the strongest' and we talked about translations and meaning, a well-fitting shoe rather than the biggest or strongest shoe, and then the origins of the chloroplast... #Margulis and #Ostrom trump #Dawkins and #Hardin, if it's a competition between theories (Ikr)
#survivalofthefittest -
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
Heute #onthisday 1818 wurde Karl #Marx geboren. Er war ein bedeutender #Ökonom des 19. Jahrhunderts, wird aber leider immer noch ideologisiert. Empfehle daher dringend, auch Ökonominnen des 21. Jhts. wie Elinor #Ostrom, Maja #Göpel u.a. zu lesen. 📖
-
Guten Morgen - Tässle Kaffee ☕️?
Nach meiner Auffassung sind #Wasser-Quellen primär eine #Allmende, also eine #Gemeinressource (nach Elinor #Ostrom, „Jenseits von #Markt und #Staat“). Deswegen sollten sie nicht an Konzerne privatisiert, sondern über kommunale Verbände dezentral verwaltet werden. Das Anlegerportale wie #Wallstreetonline angesichts der #Wasserkrise Privatanleger zum Wasser 💧 als „flüssiges #Gold“ rufen, war dagegen zu erwarten. #Wirtschaft #Politik
-
@Caelumtangi @spla @pere
Els AA es governen amb el que ells anomenen 12 tradicions, que són 12 normes en les que estableixen un seguit de pautes generals de govern, la resta es deixa a l'autonomia de cada grup. Jo veig força similituds en la manera, que jo sàpiga, es governa el #fediverse, i que, per altra banda, s'assemblen a les normes de govern dels #bénscomuns que la Premi Nobel d'Economia Elinor #Ostrom va identificar. -
If you'd like to learn about famous #economists, we've got #podcasts on all of these:
#Smith
#Marx
#Ricardo
#Keynes
#Hayek
#Friedman
#Pigou
#Ostrom
#Robinson
#Malthus
#Khaldun
#Kahneman
#Fawcett
#Schumacher
#Schumpeter
#Sen
#DeSolo
#Yunus
#Duflo
#Phillips
#Gini
#NashJr
#Lewis
#Buchanan
#Kuznets
#Marshall
#VeblenWith more to come... #econtwitter
-
If you'd like to learn about famous #economists, we've got #podcasts on all of these:
#Smith
#Marx
#Ricardo
#Keynes
#Hayek
#Friedman
#Pigou
#Ostrom
#Robinson
#Malthus
#Khaldun
#Kahneman
#Fawcett
#Schumacher
#Schumpeter
#Sen
#DeSolo
#Yunus
#Duflo
#Phillips
#Gini
#NashJr
#Lewis
#Buchanan
#Kuznets
#Marshall
#VeblenWith more to come... #econtwitter
-
If you'd like to learn about famous #economists, we've got #podcasts on all of these:
#Smith
#Marx
#Ricardo
#Keynes
#Hayek
#Friedman
#Pigou
#Ostrom
#Robinson
#Malthus
#Khaldun
#Kahneman
#Fawcett
#Schumacher
#Schumpeter
#Sen
#DeSolo
#Yunus
#Duflo
#Phillips
#Gini
#NashJr
#Lewis
#Buchanan
#Kuznets
#Marshall
#VeblenWith more to come... #econtwitter
-
If you'd like to learn about famous #economists, we've got #podcasts on all of these:
#Smith
#Marx
#Ricardo
#Keynes
#Hayek
#Friedman
#Pigou
#Ostrom
#Robinson
#Malthus
#Khaldun
#Kahneman
#Fawcett
#Schumacher
#Schumpeter
#Sen
#DeSolo
#Yunus
#Duflo
#Phillips
#Gini
#NashJr
#Lewis
#Buchanan
#Kuznets
#Marshall
#VeblenWith more to come... #econtwitter
-
If you'd like to learn about famous #economists, we've got #podcasts on all of these:
#Smith
#Marx
#Ricardo
#Keynes
#Hayek
#Friedman
#Pigou
#Ostrom
#Robinson
#Malthus
#Khaldun
#Kahneman
#Fawcett
#Schumacher
#Schumpeter
#Sen
#DeSolo
#Yunus
#Duflo
#Phillips
#Gini
#NashJr
#Lewis
#Buchanan
#Kuznets
#Marshall
#VeblenWith more to come... #econtwitter