3 ms·

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for

by berntb 10y ago

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end: Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. ... Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.

pandaman 10y ago
Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
- berntb 10y ago
  So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc? The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this? This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about: "Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..." Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method... I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here. Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
  - pandaman 10y ago
    Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.
    - berntb 10y ago
      You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater. Enough.
- berntb 10y ago
  Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method. I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know. I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them. If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them. All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly. History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles. Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
    - berntb 10y ago
      Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study. Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation. Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)
- beefield 10y ago
  To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively. My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

by berntb 10y ago

pandaman 10y ago

Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?

berntb 10y ago
So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc? The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this? This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about: "Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..." Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method... I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here. Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
- pandaman 10y ago
  Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.
  - berntb 10y ago
    You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater. Enough.
berntb 10y ago
Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method. I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know. I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them. If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- coldtea 10y ago
  >To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them. All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly. History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles. Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
  - berntb 10y ago
    Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study. Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation. Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)
beefield 10y ago
To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively. My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons