3 ms·

This reminds me of: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refut... There's a c

This reminds me of: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refut... There's a complicated issue where theoretical predictions go one way and empirical evidence is mixed. Result: everyone looks at the studies that suggest they're right, and claims that they "debunk" the studies that suggest they're wrong. You get to look at all the weaknesses of the studies you don't like, and ignore the weaknesses of the studies you do like. In this case of course the UW study was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle. Then, apparently, in mid-June, after seeing the results of the UW study (but before they were publicly released), the mayor of Seattle commissioned this second study, this time from UC Berkeley's IRLE. (Why the IRLE? It certainly couldn't be because their previous work suggests that they very strongly believe the minimum wage has no disemployment effect.) The IRLE's study said the minimum wage increase had no disemployment effect. Whew. Debunked and well refuted! Just for fun, you can use this handy guide to see which study has been refuted: - if you want the minimum wage to increase, then excluding multi-location businesses from their analysis obviously damns the UW study, and proves that their results can be ignored. - if you don't want the minimum wage to increase, then including only food-service jobs in their analysis obviously damns the Berkeley study, and proves that their results can be ignored.

cwyers 9y ago
> In this case of course the UW study was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle. Then, apparently, in mid-June, after seeing the results of the UW study (but before they were publicly released), the mayor of Seattle commissioned this second study, this time from UC Berkeley's IRLE. That's what really bugs me. They commission the UW study, they see the results, and then they commission this other study hurriedly to release six days before the UW study. If you keep asking the question until you get the results you want, you're going to get the results you want.
haberman 9y ago
> This reminds me of: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refut... What an excellent essay. I especially liked: > There are many “questions” that are pretty much settled – evolution, global warming, homeopathy. But taking these as representative closes your mind and gives you a skewed picture of academia. On many issues, academics are just as divided as anyone else, and their arguments can be just as acrimonious as anyone else’s. The arguments usually take the form of one side publishing a study, the other side ripping the study apart and publishing their own study which they say is better, and the first side ripping the second study apart and arguing that their study was better all along.

cwyers 9y ago

> In this case of course the UW study was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle. Then, apparently, in mid-June, after seeing the results of the UW study (but before they were publicly released), the mayor of Seattle commissioned this second study, this time from UC Berkeley's IRLE. That's what really bugs me. They commission the UW study, they see the results, and then they commission this other study hurriedly to release six days before the UW study. If you keep asking the question until you get the results you want, you're going to get the results you want.

haberman 9y ago

> This reminds me of: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refut... What an excellent essay. I especially liked: > There are many “questions” that are pretty much settled – evolution, global warming, homeopathy. But taking these as representative closes your mind and gives you a skewed picture of academia. On many issues, academics are just as divided as anyone else, and their arguments can be just as acrimonious as anyone else’s. The arguments usually take the form of one side publishing a study, the other side ripping the study apart and publishing their own study which they say is better, and the first side ripping the second study apart and arguing that their study was better all along.