4 ms·

It is in the ability to predict novel situations that understanding is tested.

lottin 5y ago
Not really. For example, a model can accurately explain variable X as a function of Z, Y but if Z and Y are exogenous variables, i.e. outside of the scope of the model, then the future behaviour of X cannot be known, despite the fact that we may understand very well the mechanisms by which Z and Y cause X.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Which is why economics is not a science.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Science is the application of the scientific method, and mainstream economics fully adheres to the scientific method. There are heterodox schools, such as the Austrian school, that reject the scientific method, and these are definitely not scientific.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Your model of X, Y, and Z cannot make predictions. How do you validate it?
      - lottin 5y ago
        Generally speaking, statistical models are validated by measuring how well/bad they fit the data, for example, studying the residuals and performing statistical tests. Predictive power can be estimated by using the model to predict known outcomes (using out-of-sample data).
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Economics is a social science and as such, is not really amenable to the methods of falsification or experimentation that work well in physics or chemistry. In short, it's not really a science. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do your best to be logical and factual as much as possible, but at the end of the day you will produce mostly unfalsifiable theorizing. Really you need more modest goals, for example to at least try to approach the subject objectively rather than via sentimental moralizing. Even that is a massive effort. Imagine a physicist decrying how "wrong" it is for gravity to be weaker than the other forces. You would laugh at such a person and immediately classify them as not a real physicist. So you can use that as a filter to exclude much of heterodox economics and economists as a start. That's the battle being waged -- objectivity -- not falsifiability.
      - lottin 5y ago
        If social sciences are not sciences, what are they? Please, explain. Also I'd like to know how falsifiability applies to the big bang theory. Thank you!
        PeterisP 5y ago
        Falsifiability applies to the big bang theory because the big bang theory is not about the general concept of "a" big bang, but about specific models of how exactly the events very shortly after the big bang happened, which make testable predictions about all the consequences of those very early events - the distribution of matter and energy in the universe, properties of cosmic microwave background, etc; such models can predict observations/measurements (of ancients events) that we have not yet made, and be falsified if those observations disagree with the model predictions.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        Falsifiability is feasible to some degree -- e.g. in history you can hypothesize that a civilization had copper and then look for evidence of copper artifacts. But in the physical sciences you have well-formed mathematical models that make very specific and precise predictions and can be tested to a high degree of accuracy. That specificity allows you to set threshholds like 5 sigma for acceptance of a result as being verified. "Did we find copper" is a bit different, and thus there is a fuzziness in history that you don't have in physics or chemistry, which is why we don't view history as being a science even though it benefits from use of the scientific method. Everything -- cooking, dating, gardening -- can make use of the scientific method, but at issue here is the trust that the public places in accepted findings of science and such trust is not justified in the fuzzier fields. People need to add big error bars in their heads when listening to results from social sciences and much smaller error bars when listening to results from physics.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      You can't really prove or disprove whether an economic theory is a good choice or not for a country at a specific time. How are you going to measure the outcomes and for how long will you measure them? The problem with economics is how politicised this field is and how the best theory ends up being what's best for governments and politicians. Is mainstream economics what's more convenient for the 1% or what's best for the world? We will never know what the economy would be if we weren't so Keysian. Maybe we wouldn't have a crisis every 10 years.

Not really. For example, a model can accurately explain variable X as a function of Z, Y but if Z and Y are exogenous variables, i.e. outside of the scope of the model, then the future behaviour of X cannot be known, despite the fact that we may understand very well the mechanisms by which Z and Y cause X.

mcguire 5y ago
Which is why economics is not a science.
- lottin 5y ago
  Science is the application of the scientific method, and mainstream economics fully adheres to the scientific method. There are heterodox schools, such as the Austrian school, that reject the scientific method, and these are definitely not scientific.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Your model of X, Y, and Z cannot make predictions. How do you validate it?
    - lottin 5y ago
      Generally speaking, statistical models are validated by measuring how well/bad they fit the data, for example, studying the residuals and performing statistical tests. Predictive power can be estimated by using the model to predict known outcomes (using out-of-sample data).
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Economics is a social science and as such, is not really amenable to the methods of falsification or experimentation that work well in physics or chemistry. In short, it's not really a science. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do your best to be logical and factual as much as possible, but at the end of the day you will produce mostly unfalsifiable theorizing. Really you need more modest goals, for example to at least try to approach the subject objectively rather than via sentimental moralizing. Even that is a massive effort. Imagine a physicist decrying how "wrong" it is for gravity to be weaker than the other forces. You would laugh at such a person and immediately classify them as not a real physicist. So you can use that as a filter to exclude much of heterodox economics and economists as a start. That's the battle being waged -- objectivity -- not falsifiability.
    - lottin 5y ago
      If social sciences are not sciences, what are they? Please, explain. Also I'd like to know how falsifiability applies to the big bang theory. Thank you!
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        Falsifiability applies to the big bang theory because the big bang theory is not about the general concept of "a" big bang, but about specific models of how exactly the events very shortly after the big bang happened, which make testable predictions about all the consequences of those very early events - the distribution of matter and energy in the universe, properties of cosmic microwave background, etc; such models can predict observations/measurements (of ancients events) that we have not yet made, and be falsified if those observations disagree with the model predictions.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        Falsifiability is feasible to some degree -- e.g. in history you can hypothesize that a civilization had copper and then look for evidence of copper artifacts. But in the physical sciences you have well-formed mathematical models that make very specific and precise predictions and can be tested to a high degree of accuracy. That specificity allows you to set threshholds like 5 sigma for acceptance of a result as being verified. "Did we find copper" is a bit different, and thus there is a fuzziness in history that you don't have in physics or chemistry, which is why we don't view history as being a science even though it benefits from use of the scientific method. Everything -- cooking, dating, gardening -- can make use of the scientific method, but at issue here is the trust that the public places in accepted findings of science and such trust is not justified in the fuzzier fields. People need to add big error bars in their heads when listening to results from social sciences and much smaller error bars when listening to results from physics.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    You can't really prove or disprove whether an economic theory is a good choice or not for a country at a specific time. How are you going to measure the outcomes and for how long will you measure them? The problem with economics is how politicised this field is and how the best theory ends up being what's best for governments and politicians. Is mainstream economics what's more convenient for the 1% or what's best for the world? We will never know what the economy would be if we weren't so Keysian. Maybe we wouldn't have a crisis every 10 years.