7 ms·

Laws in the sciences are all components of models. Newton's three laws are a component of Newtonian mechanics, so are the laws of thermodynamics. Arguing semant

by Kranar 5y ago

Laws in the sciences are all components of models. Newton's three laws are a component of Newtonian mechanics, so are the laws of thermodynamics. Arguing semantics about what a law is is the least interesting aspect of this discussion, with that said you are free to use whatever term you want but should at least be familiar that in general the term law of supply, law of demand, and that much of economics uses the term law to codify a set of common observations that are used as the basis for further derivations: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_supply [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_laws

thwayunion 5y ago
The important difference I'm commenting on is that engineers and physicists rarely get confused about when Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics are useful models. Even when they do, their "belief" in these laws is not taken as religious or political. Beliefs in models are quickly dispelled when it becomes obvious that the model is too wrong to be useful. I rarely see economists invoke Econ 101 models such as [1],[2] except in extraordinarily constrained settings. If you aren't invoking theorems about beta reduction for the simply typed lambda calculus to reason about C's memory model, then consider also refraining from using [1],[2] to analyze pretty much anything in a real economic system. This isn't pedantic. This is a real difference in how engineers and software people treat laws in the natural sciences vs how laws get treated in economics by the same set. You can call it a law, or a model, or whatever. The point -- and, not a pedantic one -- is that [1],[2] are almost never accurate enough to be useful and calling them laws doesn't change that fact.
- JulianWasTaken 5y ago
  I'm no expert myself, but my layman's understanding of some of the pushback behavioral economics has for the field of economics is relevant for your point. Specifically, from what I've seen, behavioral economics precisely wishes to reject predicting behavior via these simple economic models in favor of more nuanced understandings of complex behaviors, derivable only through empirical observation of what consumers really do, not what they should do or a simplistic law predicts they should do. (It's an interesting comparison to CS too.)
  - thwayunion 5y ago
    > (It's an interesting comparison to CS too.) Particularly since the first behavioral economist to get a Nobel was also an early pioneer in many fields which are now housed in CS departments: programming languages, artificial intelligence, theorem proving.
    - severine 5y ago
      > the first behavioral economist to get a Nobel Possibly referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon Thanks for your input in this thread!
  - hither_shores 5y ago
    You're not wrong, but GP's error is much more object level than that. The neoclassical paradigm has flaws; claiming that all markets are perfectly competitive is not one of them. Sweet tea is a textbook case of monopolistic competition, and short run inelasticity is to be expected.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Supply & Demand does not require perfectly competitive markets.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I've seen a lot of people theorize that the law of Supply+Demand price setting doesn't apply, or that it can be repealed by the legislature. They're always wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong with a case history.
  - thwayunion 5y ago
    > I've seen a lot of people theorize that the law of Supply+Demand price setting doesn't apply, or that it can be repealed by the legislature. What constrains the supply of copies of a piece of software?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > what, exactly, constrains the supply of copies of a piece of software? Nothing. Nearly all the software I use is free.
      - thwayunion 5y ago
      - thwayunion 5y ago
        The answer is the legislature, via copyright and patent law. You know this, you know the point I'm making. Your choice to be coy and unserious makes me wonder if you even sincerely hold the position you're arguing.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        I'm very serious. My Linux system is my main dev system. I didn't pay a dime for any of the software on it. I write and distribute, for free, software. It's all copyrighted and legal. You can distribute it, too, at zero cost. You don't even have to ask my permission. Feel free! How about you being more specific?
        thwayunion 5y ago
uoaei 5y ago
There's a really important caveat which is explicit in any law: "conditioned on all else being equal". In physics, we are able to isolate systems to the point where this caveat is true and the law can be experimentally validated. In economics, we do not get such affordances, because it is not and cannot be a "laboratory science".

by Kranar 5y ago

thwayunion 5y ago

The important difference I'm commenting on is that engineers and physicists rarely get confused about when Newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics are useful models. Even when they do, their "belief" in these laws is not taken as religious or political. Beliefs in models are quickly dispelled when it becomes obvious that the model is too wrong to be useful. I rarely see economists invoke Econ 101 models such as [1],[2] except in extraordinarily constrained settings. If you aren't invoking theorems about beta reduction for the simply typed lambda calculus to reason about C's memory model, then consider also refraining from using [1],[2] to analyze pretty much anything in a real economic system. This isn't pedantic. This is a real difference in how engineers and software people treat laws in the natural sciences vs how laws get treated in economics by the same set. You can call it a law, or a model, or whatever. The point -- and, not a pedantic one -- is that [1],[2] are almost never accurate enough to be useful and calling them laws doesn't change that fact.

JulianWasTaken 5y ago
I'm no expert myself, but my layman's understanding of some of the pushback behavioral economics has for the field of economics is relevant for your point. Specifically, from what I've seen, behavioral economics precisely wishes to reject predicting behavior via these simple economic models in favor of more nuanced understandings of complex behaviors, derivable only through empirical observation of what consumers really do, not what they should do or a simplistic law predicts they should do. (It's an interesting comparison to CS too.)
- thwayunion 5y ago
  > (It's an interesting comparison to CS too.) Particularly since the first behavioral economist to get a Nobel was also an early pioneer in many fields which are now housed in CS departments: programming languages, artificial intelligence, theorem proving.
  - severine 5y ago
    > the first behavioral economist to get a Nobel Possibly referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon Thanks for your input in this thread!
- hither_shores 5y ago
  You're not wrong, but GP's error is much more object level than that. The neoclassical paradigm has flaws; claiming that all markets are perfectly competitive is not one of them. Sweet tea is a textbook case of monopolistic competition, and short run inelasticity is to be expected.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Supply & Demand does not require perfectly competitive markets.
WalterBright 5y ago
I've seen a lot of people theorize that the law of Supply+Demand price setting doesn't apply, or that it can be repealed by the legislature. They're always wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong with a case history.
- thwayunion 5y ago
  > I've seen a lot of people theorize that the law of Supply+Demand price setting doesn't apply, or that it can be repealed by the legislature. What constrains the supply of copies of a piece of software?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > what, exactly, constrains the supply of copies of a piece of software? Nothing. Nearly all the software I use is free.
    - thwayunion 5y ago
    - thwayunion 5y ago
      The answer is the legislature, via copyright and patent law. You know this, you know the point I'm making. Your choice to be coy and unserious makes me wonder if you even sincerely hold the position you're arguing.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I'm very serious. My Linux system is my main dev system. I didn't pay a dime for any of the software on it. I write and distribute, for free, software. It's all copyrighted and legal. You can distribute it, too, at zero cost. You don't even have to ask my permission. Feel free! How about you being more specific?
        thwayunion 5y ago

uoaei 5y ago

There's a really important caveat which is explicit in any law: "conditioned on all else being equal". In physics, we are able to isolate systems to the point where this caveat is true and the law can be experimentally validated. In economics, we do not get such affordances, because it is not and cannot be a "laboratory science".