3 ms·
There's a reason that formal/natural science has some conventional standards. Theories need to be (at least theoretically) falsifiable, or they fall outside of
by dalbasal 8y ago
There's a reason that formal/natural science has some conventional standards. Theories need to be (at least theoretically) falsifiable, or they fall outside of Popper's "scientific theory" definition. Studies need to follow conventions, like double blindness whenever there's a slight chance a researcher could influence results, even unknowingly. Replicability, transparency...
Without these standards, science breaks down. Biases slip in. Authority slips in. "Fact" loses its position as the ultimate determinant of scientific truth.
In the deep waters of theoretical physics, the "problem" is that the scientific method gets to be a little abstract. A theory is falsifiable, in principle, but not in practice.
Economics is not a science in the strict, Popperian sense. This essay demonstrates why. Without Popperian standards, you get finger pointing and unresolvable claims of intellectual dishonesty.
This doesn't mean that science is perfect, but it is distinct from nonscientific (including social "science" fields). A history book written in 2068 will, based on no new information, give a totally different account of historical cause and effect to the ones we write today. Darwin's or Newton's differ only inasmuch as new information has become available since hey were written.
This isn't a bash on economics (or history, etc.). Most things are not science.
What truly caused the fall of the Roman Empire. 18th & 19th century imperial historians thought it was debauchery, echoing their zeitgeist about carnal desires and moral rot. Marx thought it was historical materialism. 20th century historians focused more on cultural influx & migrations. Later 20th century historians liked more postmodernist "one damned thing after another" explanations.
The model(s) for linking monetary policy to inflation rates are not science. There is no agreed upon method for one model displacing another one. Of course everyone is accusing eachother of bullshitting.
- grigjd3 8y agoI did numerical simulations on black holes and the scientific method felt incredibly concrete to me. I was working on models that would be put to test by LIGO and further future GW detectors. Theory->prediction->test (in observation if not in lab). I don't know how much more concrete that gets.
- petermcneeley 8y agoYa this thought is common "In the deep waters of theoretical physics, the "problem" is that the scientific method gets to be a little abstract. A theory is falsifiable, in principle, but not in practice." but I dont know of an area where it applies. Even the vacuum energy (way beyond my academic level) is verified in experimentation with the Casimir effect.
- grigjd3 8y agoI think the sentiment might be driven by breathless and hollow pop-science like Michio Kaku books.