This is absurd. The reason to go for a degree with a quantitative focus is because its much more enjoyable to read philosophy and psychology on your own. A lot of people are well read in these areas outside of college. In general though people don't sit down with a PDE textbook for fun. Personally, I would get a math BS with a minor in business or econ if I had to do it over.
The distinction that should be made here in order to make things intelligible again is the distinction between knowledge that follows from solving a problem in a negative sense and knowledge that follows from solving a problem in a positive sense. According to Popper the problem of induction has been solved in a negative sense by which he means that it has been conclusively demonstrated that we can never justify the truth of a believe in a conjunction. Solving the problem of induction in a positive sense would entail demonstrating that we are justified in doing so. Possessing absolute knowledge means that you're able to justify the truth of your believes. While Popper affirms that we can possess knowledge by means of our relation to reality through the process of falsification he denied the possibility of absolute knowledge. Popper's idea of falsification is what ultimately allows for this without the argument becoming circular. Soros' problem of reflexivity doesnât directly follow from the problem of induction. Instead it in many ways anticipates a possible solution to the problem of induction by stating that even if a solution could be arrived at weâll still always have this subset of conjunctions that are problematic because of their recursion. In that sense his problem of reflexivity is really a variation on Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Gödel uses the axiom âThis axiom cannot be provenâ as way to establish the limits of axiomatic systems in mathematics. Soros tries to establish limits of possible conjunctions in a somewhat similar way. His idea that our attempts to understand the world will change the world tries to eliminate any certainty surrounding conjunctions that describe relations between a subject and the world, thereby always maintaining a subset of conjunctions that cannot fit the requirement for absolute knowledge.
They never do, BSAM, especially once Jack Hershey starts spouting psychobabble and other forms of philosophical bullshit. The question asked what the best degree for trading is, and it's still financial econ, followed with CFA curriculum enhancement.
Thanks for the advice! I'll be sure to try and at least take a first year philosophy course at university.
Jack, your "Cash Cow" is really more of a cow pie. Just ask ScottD who hasn't posted since March 2009 when he said "Cash Cow" (as certified by YOU) isn't profitable. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2462769&#post2462769 <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2868417>