5 ms·

A lot of this article reminded me of the techniques used by climate change deniers to sow doubt. Take for example the following: > Another correction concerns

A lot of this article reminded me of the techniques used by climate change deniers to sow doubt. Take for example the following: > Another correction concerns the tax reforms passed under Ronald Reagan in 1986. Apparent changes in top incomes around this reform account for about two-fifths of the total increase between 1962 and 2015 in the pre-tax incomes of the top 1% in Messrs Piketty and Saez’s estimates. Messrs Auten and Splinter say this is an illusion. Reagan’s tax reform created strong incentives for firms to operate as “pass-through” entities, where owners register profits as income on their tax returns, rather than sheltering this income inside corporations. Since these incentives did not exist before then, top-income shares before 1987 are liable to be understated. In essence this just says that it's possible the rich used to be overwhelmingly rich even before the Reagan era reforms, hence inequality might not have increased that much over the past decades. This is hardly comforting for the average person. Or take a look at the conclusive paragraph: > While that long and bloody academic battle takes place it would be wise for policymakers to proceed cautiously. Proposals for much heavier taxes on high earners, or a tax on net wealth, or the far more radical plans outlined in Mr Piketty’s latest book, are responses to a problem that is only partially understood. Doesn't it smack of "the science is not in yet" argument used by climate change deniers?

el_cujo 7y ago
Looking at your methodology critically is crucial to all fields of science though, as is changing your conclusions and interpretations as more findings come forward. Dismissing someone outright for challenging something that has become dogma is anti-scientific even if that dogma is based on facts. If it's actually true, then it will stand up to scrutiny.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  I absolutely agree. However I'm not at all sure Piketty's ideas are dogma. If anything he's the challenger to the neoliberal dogma. Secondly, the fact that there are diverging sides to an issue doesn't mean those sides have the same likelihood of being true. To take a trivial example, flat-earthers are challenging the dogma that the Earth is round (spherical to be more precise) - should this mean that their position should be taken seriously?
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Yes, Piketty and co are the challengers. Therefore the burden of proof is on them to convince people their ideas are true, and presenting their ideas without pointing out how the rest of the field thinks of them would be the analogue of your climate deniers in your comment above.
ameister14 7y ago
>In essence this just says that it's possible the rich used to be overwhelmingly rich even before the Reagan era reforms, hence inequality might not have increased that much over the past decades. This is hardly comforting for the average person. While that may not be comforting, it does cast doubt on the idea that inequality is the cause of all our ills. Yes, it does smack of the science is not in yet argument - except that this is not climate change. Climate change's academic battle is essentially over. This one is not.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I think the parallels have a lot more to do with the resulting demands for action, not the academic battle.
downerending 7y ago
If an argument can't stand up to its opponents, it's not much of an argument.
s1k3b8 7y ago
> A lot of this article reminded me of the techniques used by climate change deniers to sow doubt. And a lot of climate change advocates' technique reminds me of the religious zealots of the past. Even down to the ad hominems like "Christ denier"/"climate change denier". Firstly, I don't believe climate change is a matter of "belief". No such thing as a "climate change denier". Climate change is an intrinsic part of nature. It always exists. > Doesn't it smack of "the science is not in yet" argument used by climate change deniers? But the "science is not yet in". That's why there is so much debate, even within the "climate change" advocacy group. If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE. On the one hand, climate change advocates claim that the climate is too complex that we can't have a predictive model yet. And yet, climate change advocates also claim that their own personal view is gospel and everyone else who doesn't agree are heretics.
- intarga 7y ago
  >If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE. In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity, yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward.
  - s1k3b8 7y ago
    > In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation. Also, there is a difference between "different" models of gravity that gives the same results/predictions given the same input and different climate models that give different results/predictions given the same input. > yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward. If I drop a ball from the window, every valid model of gravity gives the same time for when the ball will hit the ground. If the models of gravity were like the climate models, we'd have dozen different times for when the ball hits the ground. We'd have 1s, 5s, 3s... Hell one result would claim the ball will float up and never hit the ground. If the gravity models were like climate models, we would not be able to fly planes. This is why climate change advocates are so disappointing. The complete lack of understanding of science and yet that ignorance makes them pretend they are an authority on science.
beerandt 7y ago
Only in the sense that predictive global economic theories are equally as un-testable as predictive global climate theories, at least in the traditional sense of comparing experimental results against a control group. And demanding relatively drastic policy changes based on said theories, in comparison to policies influenced by other areas of science. I could see that logic carrying over.

el_cujo 7y ago

Looking at your methodology critically is crucial to all fields of science though, as is changing your conclusions and interpretations as more findings come forward. Dismissing someone outright for challenging something that has become dogma is anti-scientific even if that dogma is based on facts. If it's actually true, then it will stand up to scrutiny.

leto_ii 7y ago
I absolutely agree. However I'm not at all sure Piketty's ideas are dogma. If anything he's the challenger to the neoliberal dogma. Secondly, the fact that there are diverging sides to an issue doesn't mean those sides have the same likelihood of being true. To take a trivial example, flat-earthers are challenging the dogma that the Earth is round (spherical to be more precise) - should this mean that their position should be taken seriously?
- ikeboy 7y ago
  Yes, Piketty and co are the challengers. Therefore the burden of proof is on them to convince people their ideas are true, and presenting their ideas without pointing out how the rest of the field thinks of them would be the analogue of your climate deniers in your comment above.

ameister14 7y ago

>In essence this just says that it's possible the rich used to be overwhelmingly rich even before the Reagan era reforms, hence inequality might not have increased that much over the past decades. This is hardly comforting for the average person. While that may not be comforting, it does cast doubt on the idea that inequality is the cause of all our ills. Yes, it does smack of the science is not in yet argument - except that this is not climate change. Climate change's academic battle is essentially over. This one is not.

beerandt 7y ago
I think the parallels have a lot more to do with the resulting demands for action, not the academic battle.

downerending 7y ago

If an argument can't stand up to its opponents, it's not much of an argument.

s1k3b8 7y ago

> A lot of this article reminded me of the techniques used by climate change deniers to sow doubt. And a lot of climate change advocates' technique reminds me of the religious zealots of the past. Even down to the ad hominems like "Christ denier"/"climate change denier". Firstly, I don't believe climate change is a matter of "belief". No such thing as a "climate change denier". Climate change is an intrinsic part of nature. It always exists. > Doesn't it smack of "the science is not in yet" argument used by climate change deniers? But the "science is not yet in". That's why there is so much debate, even within the "climate change" advocacy group. If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE. On the one hand, climate change advocates claim that the climate is too complex that we can't have a predictive model yet. And yet, climate change advocates also claim that their own personal view is gospel and everyone else who doesn't agree are heretics.

intarga 7y ago
>If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE. In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity, yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward.
- s1k3b8 7y ago
  > In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation. Also, there is a difference between "different" models of gravity that gives the same results/predictions given the same input and different climate models that give different results/predictions given the same input. > yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward. If I drop a ball from the window, every valid model of gravity gives the same time for when the ball will hit the ground. If the models of gravity were like the climate models, we'd have dozen different times for when the ball hits the ground. We'd have 1s, 5s, 3s... Hell one result would claim the ball will float up and never hit the ground. If the gravity models were like climate models, we would not be able to fly planes. This is why climate change advocates are so disappointing. The complete lack of understanding of science and yet that ignorance makes them pretend they are an authority on science.

beerandt 7y ago

Only in the sense that predictive global economic theories are equally as un-testable as predictive global climate theories, at least in the traditional sense of comparing experimental results against a control group. And demanding relatively drastic policy changes based on said theories, in comparison to policies influenced by other areas of science. I could see that logic carrying over.