4 ms·

Science is supposed to be about the scientific method--a testable hypothesis. This strict definition has been forsaken for the benefit of all who would like to

Science is supposed to be about the scientific method--a testable hypothesis. This strict definition has been forsaken for the benefit of all who would like to publish, and take credit for, science.

heyoni 7y ago
This is bound to happen in a social sciences experiment where the environment can’t be completely controlled.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Social science often isn't science at all. It's often really bad. Social experiments by their very nature tend to pollute the data. This is part of why I don't believe UBI would actually work: Historical real world examples of the idea consistently fail. I think the UBI experiments are all nonsense.
  - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
    This is clearly a side branch, but I'll bite. Can you point to historical real world examples?
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      Communism promised to provide equally well to all people. It's considered to be very much a failed experiment. Early settlers in the US promised to provide for everyone. When freeloaders eventually ruined that deal, they changed it to "If you don't work, you don't eat." Every time this has been tried out in the world, it works for a small group of committed, like-minded people. When it is opened up to "anyone/everyone," they inevitably have to come up with rules to account for free riders who want to take advantage. Another real world example: When Spanish Conquistadors sent large quantities of silver back to Spain from the Americas, it didn't make everyone in Spain rich. It merely fueled inflation. That's what happens when you add money to the system without adding goods and services: Prices go up. The current UBI experiments are so limited in scope that the conclusion is akin to saying "People with kindly rich uncles are better off than people without such." But when it stops being a small group of privileged experiment subjects and becomes everyone, the conclusions drawn from the experiments won't apply anymore.
      - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
        From a completely different point of view, a lot of countries already have some form of social security. If you run into some bad luck, you are not left to die in the streets; instead you get enough money to have a roof over your head and food to eat. The person who originally thought up this concept was Otto von Bismarck, a highly conservative prussian politician. The idea was that people who are not destitute but merely poor are less likely to start a (communist) revolution. In more modern times, it means that if you fall on hard times, you need not immediately be written off from society. Eg. people who are made redundant during an economic down-turn will still be available to the working pool during an economic recovery. Of course, the implementations are not perfect. In eg. the Netherlands, one issue is that getting a job and going from social security to minimum wage actually leads to a negative change in net income. This means that a rational agent might actually choose not to work once they become jobless the first time. What one might prefer is a situation where working will always yield a larger net income than not working. In such a situation, the rational choice for most people would be to always at least try to do (some) work. In such a situation where funds are already allocated, and the downsides are already proven to be minimal; a form of UBI might be one way to provide that dynamic. In such a situation it may prove to be a rational tweak to increase the working population.
        DoreenMichele 7y ago
        You seem to be missing the detail that UBI is being proposed as a means to help keep people afloat in the face of mass permanent unemployment. Then articles that propose that as the raison d'etre for UBI don't actually explore that dystopian scenario where robots have eliminated jobs paying $20k to $50k and you get like $10k to live on with no hope of a job. Instead, they tell glowing feel-good stories about how social workers could pay down debt and save a few bucks or whatever. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/05/20/tech-giants-elon-musk-sam-altman-push-universal-basic-income-concept/ https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/05/20/tech-giants-elo...
        Kim_Bruning 7y ago
        Obviously, a "Kim-style" UBI would be a bit different from the one proposed in that particular article. I'm looking at something that might be a good workaround to actually get to a workable implementation of Negative Income Tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax ... which is definitely financially feasible and quite likely a good idea (and likely to save money in so many ways). In itself it's just a little bit impractical due to the sheer amount of work that rewriting tax laws would take. Hence: workaround. Also note that I am speaking from experience-on-the-ground in Europe, and my reasons to propose UBI are thus a little different from those of Elon Musk or Sam Altman.

Science is supposed to be about the scientific method--a testable hypothesis. This strict definition has been forsaken for the benefit of all who would like to publish, and take credit for, science.

heyoni 7y ago

This is bound to happen in a social sciences experiment where the environment can’t be completely controlled.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Social science often isn't science at all. It's often really bad. Social experiments by their very nature tend to pollute the data. This is part of why I don't believe UBI would actually work: Historical real world examples of the idea consistently fail. I think the UBI experiments are all nonsense.
- Kim_Bruning 7y ago
  This is clearly a side branch, but I'll bite. Can you point to historical real world examples?
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Communism promised to provide equally well to all people. It's considered to be very much a failed experiment. Early settlers in the US promised to provide for everyone. When freeloaders eventually ruined that deal, they changed it to "If you don't work, you don't eat." Every time this has been tried out in the world, it works for a small group of committed, like-minded people. When it is opened up to "anyone/everyone," they inevitably have to come up with rules to account for free riders who want to take advantage. Another real world example: When Spanish Conquistadors sent large quantities of silver back to Spain from the Americas, it didn't make everyone in Spain rich. It merely fueled inflation. That's what happens when you add money to the system without adding goods and services: Prices go up. The current UBI experiments are so limited in scope that the conclusion is akin to saying "People with kindly rich uncles are better off than people without such." But when it stops being a small group of privileged experiment subjects and becomes everyone, the conclusions drawn from the experiments won't apply anymore.
    - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
      From a completely different point of view, a lot of countries already have some form of social security. If you run into some bad luck, you are not left to die in the streets; instead you get enough money to have a roof over your head and food to eat. The person who originally thought up this concept was Otto von Bismarck, a highly conservative prussian politician. The idea was that people who are not destitute but merely poor are less likely to start a (communist) revolution. In more modern times, it means that if you fall on hard times, you need not immediately be written off from society. Eg. people who are made redundant during an economic down-turn will still be available to the working pool during an economic recovery. Of course, the implementations are not perfect. In eg. the Netherlands, one issue is that getting a job and going from social security to minimum wage actually leads to a negative change in net income. This means that a rational agent might actually choose not to work once they become jobless the first time. What one might prefer is a situation where working will always yield a larger net income than not working. In such a situation, the rational choice for most people would be to always at least try to do (some) work. In such a situation where funds are already allocated, and the downsides are already proven to be minimal; a form of UBI might be one way to provide that dynamic. In such a situation it may prove to be a rational tweak to increase the working population.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        You seem to be missing the detail that UBI is being proposed as a means to help keep people afloat in the face of mass permanent unemployment. Then articles that propose that as the raison d'etre for UBI don't actually explore that dystopian scenario where robots have eliminated jobs paying $20k to $50k and you get like $10k to live on with no hope of a job. Instead, they tell glowing feel-good stories about how social workers could pay down debt and save a few bucks or whatever. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/05/20/tech-giants-elon-musk-sam-altman-push-universal-basic-income-concept/ https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2017/05/20/tech-giants-elo...
        Kim_Bruning 7y ago
        Obviously, a "Kim-style" UBI would be a bit different from the one proposed in that particular article. I'm looking at something that might be a good workaround to actually get to a workable implementation of Negative Income Tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax ... which is definitely financially feasible and quite likely a good idea (and likely to save money in so many ways). In itself it's just a little bit impractical due to the sheer amount of work that rewriting tax laws would take. Hence: workaround. Also note that I am speaking from experience-on-the-ground in Europe, and my reasons to propose UBI are thus a little different from those of Elon Musk or Sam Altman.