The 12 Most Popular Free Online Courses For Professionals Maggie Zhang, businessinsider.com
Based on data from online education platform Coursera, we compiled a list of the 12 most popular, free online classes for working professionals. Here they are, ranked by popularity:
Wesleyan University’s “Social Psychology”
University of Maryland’s “Programming Mobile Applications for Android Handheld Systems”
Duke University’s “Think Again: How to Reason and Argue”
Duke University’s “A Beginner’s Guide to Irrational Behavior”
University of Toronto’s “Learn to Program: The Fundamentals”
Stanford University’s “Startup Engineering”
Yale University’s “Financial Markets”
The University of Pennsylvania Wharton School’s “An Introduction to Financial Accounting”
University of Washington’s “Introduction to Public Speaking”
University of Michigan’s “Introduction to Finance”
The University of Pennsylvania Wharton School’s “An Introduction to Marketing”
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s “Data Analysis”

Click through for descriptions and start dates for each course.
“History reflects a gradual ‘externalization’ of measurement in terms of Carnap’s terminology (1950): the development of measurement instruments is initially for ‘internal questions’ and moves gradually towards ‘external questions’. For example, parameters are internal within models, whereas the existence of models is external with respect to the parameters. Econometric research has moved from the issue of how to optimally estimate parameters to the harder issue of how to measure and hence evaluate the efficiency, fruitfulness and simplicity of the models, i.e. the relevance of models as measuring instruments.”
emergentfutures:

Will Google Enter The Insurance Industry?
In a recently published report in cooperation with BCG India, Google concludes that insurance is among the top five product categories in which the web is the dominant purchasing channel in addition to travel, digital media, ticket purchases and books magazines. Common for the first four product categories is that the traditional sales channels have long been redundant as a result of digital disruption. The same report predicts that 75 percent of all insurance purchases will be online by 2020. If these predictions are accurate, it will give Google a dominant position as the primary sales channel for the insurance industry.
Is the insurance industry the next industry where technology with Google as a key player disrupts the existing value chain?
Full Story: TechCrunch
“[I]f a count of correct answers or a sum of ratings can provide a meaningful basis for invariant, additive quantification, then a Rasch model holds. Even when data are not evaluated for fit to a Rasch model, even when the invariance and additivity properties of quantitative measurement are ignored, use of test, survey, or assessment scores as though they are [unweighted] measures inherently implies acceptance of Rasch’s separability theorem. This is because the parameter separation theorem is nothing less than a formal representation of the rigorous independence of figure and meaning, or of name and concept (Fisher, 2003a, 2003b, 2004b), that must be assumed in any communication, even in the discourses of deconstruction (Ricoeur, 1977, p. 293; Derrida, 1982, p. 229; Derrida, 1989, p. 218; Gasché, 1987, p. 5). Though not obvious on first blush, postmodern philosophy has multiple points of contact and potentially productive associations to be found in mathematics (Tasić, 2001). Rasch’s mathematics, for instance, make tests of the qualitative hypothesis of quantitative meaningfulness (Narens, 2002) more accessible and practical than most work in this area. And in so doing, it taps deeply into the history of measurement and deploys rich possibilities for mathematical thinking that remain largely unexplored (Wright, 1988, 1997).”
“Irving Fisher is widely known for what is called a separation theorem (I. Fisher, 1930, ch. 6-8). The basic principle is fundamentally the same as Rasch’s separability theorem, but with an economic twist. The theorem separates managerial opportunities for productivity from entrepreneurial market opportunities. The point is that a firm’s basic objective is the maximization of its current value, no matter what the investment preferences & financing sources of the owners happen to be The Fisher Separation Theorem posits that investment budgeting decisions are made in a two-stage process. First, entrepreneurial capital investment decisions are held to be independent of the preferences of the owner, and second, the investment decision is independent of the financing decision. The story told by these relations became the basis of neoclassical macroeconomic theory, and each of them could be written as a multifaceted Rasch model (Linacre, 1989)”
emergentfutures:

Meet the UK start-ups changing the world with open data
The ‘open data’ movement in the UK has prompted the creation of a cluster of new businesses
Full Story: The Telegraph
“But, strictly speaking, it cannot be claimed that [social] contradictions and their fusion are merely the pure phenomena of the general contradiction. The circumstances and currents constituting it are more than its phenomena pure and simple. They derive from the relations of production, which are, of course, one of the terms of the contradiction, but at the same time its conditions of existence; from the superstructures, instances deriving from it, but with their own consistency and efficacy; from the international conjuncture itself, which intervenes as a determination with a specific role to play. […] The unity they constitute in this ‘fusion’ into a revolutionary rupture, is constituted by their own essence and efficacy, by what they are according to the specific modalities of their action. In constituting this unity, they reconstitute and consummate their basic animating unity, but at the same time they also bring out its nature: the ‘contradiction’ is inseparable from the total structure of the social body in which it is found, inseparable from its formal conditions of existence, even from the instances it governs; it is radically affected by them, determining and determined in one and the same movement by the various levels and instances of the social formation it animates; it might be called in principle overdetermined.”
ordnungsokonomik replied to your quote: “Historians of biology have uncovered many cases of cooking the…” >”Gould 1981” I don’t think Gould’s commentary on IQ was remotely honest Thanks for the heads-up. It’s surely not the only time McCloskey gets far too much mileage out of lousy sources. Throughout the book I felt that because she can write, McCloskey chooses to focus only on subject matter that’s easy to write about, often to the detriment of her argument and her scholarship. I suppose it’s impressive for a book initially published in 1985, but by 2014 standards it’s horribly written, with only the most facile, undergrad-level grasp of lit crit and its import. This comes out most clearly in how she assumes ‘modernism’ = ‘logical positivism’, and subsequently name-drops Jürgen Habermas (+also W.V.O. Quine) as being in her own camp of ‘anti-modernists’. There are some pearls buried in the sea of bullshit, of course, but overall she just hasn’t bothered to do her due diligence, and it’s a terrible shame that she is the best writer the economics establishment has to give.
ordnungsokonomik replied to your quote: “Historians of biology have uncovered many cases of cooking the…”
>”Gould 1981” I don’t think Gould’s commentary on IQ was remotely honest

Thanks for the heads-up. It’s surely not the only time McCloskey gets far too much mileage out of lousy sources. Throughout the book I felt that because she can write, McCloskey chooses to focus only on subject matter that’s easy to write about, often to the detriment of her argument and her scholarship.

I suppose it’s impressive for a book initially published in 1985, but by 2014 standards it’s horribly written, with only the most facile, undergrad-level grasp of lit crit and its import. This comes out most clearly in how she assumes ‘modernism’ = ‘logical positivism’, and subsequently name-drops Jürgen Habermas (+also W.V.O. Quine) as being in her own camp of ‘anti-modernists’. There are some pearls buried in the sea of bullshit, of course, but overall she just hasn’t bothered to do her due diligence, and it’s a terrible shame that she is the best writer the economics establishment has to give.
j-wonk:

(via Daily chart: Bigger big banks | The Economist)