3 ms·

I don't think it's that complicated. And I think that various reasons might explain portions of the problem. For example, maybe this reason explains 70% of the

I don't think it's that complicated. And I think that various reasons might explain portions of the problem. For example, maybe this reason explains 70% of the problem. We can use science, mathematics, and statistics to test hypothesis about this, and journalism to publicize the results of our tests, as this guy and the people he cites have done. But I don't think calling someone a reductionist sociologist without providing significant refutation is among the useful possible responses to the article.

techiferous 17y ago
"...calling someone a reductionist sociologist..." Good point. So who is this guy? His name is Tim Harford, and according to the book jacket of The Undercover Economist: "Tim Harford writes the Financial Times Magazine "Dear Economist" column, in which he draws upon the latest economic theories to provide tongue-in-cheek answers to readers' personal dilemmas. He also works at the World Bank, where he is the lead writer for the Chief Economist of the International Finance Corporation. Formerly an economics editorial writer at the Financial Times, Harford has served as both an economist for a major oil company and an economics tutor at Oxford University. He lives in Washington DC." So I think it's fair to call him an economist and a writer.
mynameishere 17y ago
To respond to techiferous quickly, I'll just point out that the author is basically advertising the fact that he is reductionist by heading sections with "The Missing Jigsaw Piece", etc. Maybe the book is different, okay. We can use science, mathematics, and statistics to test hypothesis You can't, though. It's really hard to make the world a laboratory, though it does sometimes happen by accident. The differences between N and S Korea, E and W Germany, China and Taiwan, I think, settled the question of Communism vs. Capitalism. But good luck in getting the grant money to set up such an experiment. I've pointed out that the USA itself is really a quite corrupt, thieving, murderous entity, but this hasn't really mattered that much. Another example? Nazi Germany. They had a ridiculous war economy, they sent all their young men to butcher people, they imprisoned millions of citizens and foreigners, they had brutal police and internal security, etc, etc. All the worst possible things. Worse than Cameroon could possibly aspire to. And yet the country was prosperous almost to the end of the regime. And this was coming off the heels of the worst historical instances of hyperinflation, depression, and world war. All of which were also caused by politicians. That's a lot of bad government but it ultimately didn't matter at all.
- techiferous 17y ago
  "It's really hard to make the world a laboratory" I agree completely. The sort of thing we're discussing isn't amenable to repeatable, controlled experiments. And it's very complex.
  - wisty 17y ago
    That doesn't completely defeat empiricism though. Controlled experiments are best, then uncontrolled experiments (checking that the theories are backed up by real data), then pure reason (non-reductionism) is a cop-out.

techiferous 17y ago

"...calling someone a reductionist sociologist..." Good point. So who is this guy? His name is Tim Harford, and according to the book jacket of The Undercover Economist: "Tim Harford writes the Financial Times Magazine "Dear Economist" column, in which he draws upon the latest economic theories to provide tongue-in-cheek answers to readers' personal dilemmas. He also works at the World Bank, where he is the lead writer for the Chief Economist of the International Finance Corporation. Formerly an economics editorial writer at the Financial Times, Harford has served as both an economist for a major oil company and an economics tutor at Oxford University. He lives in Washington DC." So I think it's fair to call him an economist and a writer.

mynameishere 17y ago

To respond to techiferous quickly, I'll just point out that the author is basically advertising the fact that he is reductionist by heading sections with "The Missing Jigsaw Piece", etc. Maybe the book is different, okay. We can use science, mathematics, and statistics to test hypothesis You can't, though. It's really hard to make the world a laboratory, though it does sometimes happen by accident. The differences between N and S Korea, E and W Germany, China and Taiwan, I think, settled the question of Communism vs. Capitalism. But good luck in getting the grant money to set up such an experiment. I've pointed out that the USA itself is really a quite corrupt, thieving, murderous entity, but this hasn't really mattered that much. Another example? Nazi Germany. They had a ridiculous war economy, they sent all their young men to butcher people, they imprisoned millions of citizens and foreigners, they had brutal police and internal security, etc, etc. All the worst possible things. Worse than Cameroon could possibly aspire to. And yet the country was prosperous almost to the end of the regime. And this was coming off the heels of the worst historical instances of hyperinflation, depression, and world war. All of which were also caused by politicians. That's a lot of bad government but it ultimately didn't matter at all.

techiferous 17y ago
"It's really hard to make the world a laboratory" I agree completely. The sort of thing we're discussing isn't amenable to repeatable, controlled experiments. And it's very complex.
- wisty 17y ago
  That doesn't completely defeat empiricism though. Controlled experiments are best, then uncontrolled experiments (checking that the theories are backed up by real data), then pure reason (non-reductionism) is a cop-out.