4 ms·

Falsifiability, controllability. Most hard sciences study and explain phenomena in an isolated and controlled system. You have well defined input parameters, so

by mekoka 3y ago

Falsifiability, controllability. Most hard sciences study and explain phenomena in an isolated and controlled system. You have well defined input parameters, some starting context, and you observe the output over time. You change your input and/or the context and you note the change in the output. Because the system is controlled and isolated, the experiment, if repeated by a different observer, should in theory give them the same results. From those observations, you can begin to infer what the plausible relationships are between the actors in your experiment and devise your hypotheses. Physics and chemistry for example leave little room to ambiguity. Biology because of factors like aging and mutation has to account for some variance. But the further away we move from an isolated system and include increasingly unpredictable or difficult to account for inputs or context, the less we can claim to have predictable output. Some nutrition advices for example are questionable, because they aim to give simplistic recommendations based on isolated observations of a phenomenon, that must eventually work as part of a sophisticated synergistic system. Many disciplines currently considered (or disputed) to be science allege to map inputs to output in similarly complex systems. Economy must account for human behaviour, culture, environment, leadership, just to name a few volatile factors (plus a crystal ball for things like COVID-19, remote work, Russia vs Ukraine).

throw0101c 3y ago
What was the controllable with Eddington? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment Einstein's models made a prediction, people 'tested' that prediction in Nature, and it turned out accurate. General theory has made other predictions, and empirical observations have found them to be accurate as well. Plenty of "real" science is/was done outside of controlled experiments in a lab. A phenomena was going to happen (e.g., tax law changes): some economic models predicted X would happen, and some predicted Y would. We can see which were more accurate and which were falsified: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment Rotterdam is running an experiment right now with regards to real estate markets and regulation: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers * https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/06/buy-to-let-ban-is-good-for-first-time-buyers-but-bad-for-tenants/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/06/buy-to-let-ban-is-good-for-... Every time the Federal Reserve makes a policy change there are people running their models on what will happen, and if their models are right they make a lot of money, and if they're wrong they lose a lot of money: > But why was Gross betting so heavily against Treasuries? Brad DeLong tries to rationalize[1] Gross’s behavior in terms of a coherent story about an impending U.S. recovery, which would lift us out of the liquidity trap. But Gross wasn’t saying anything like that. Instead, he was claiming that the Fed’s asset purchases — QE2 — were holding rates down, and warned that the impending spike in rates when QE2 ended would derail recovery. > So why did he believe all that? It all comes down, I’d argue, to liquidity trap denial. > Since 2008 the basic logic of the economic situation has been that the private sector is trying to run a huge surplus, and the public sector isn’t willing to run a corresponding deficit. The result is an economy awash in desired savings with nowhere to go. This in turn means that budget deficits aren’t competing with private borrowing, and therefore need not drive up interest rates. This isn’t hindsight; it’s what I and others have been saying since the very beginning[2]. * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/the-pimco-perplex/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0... If people don't want to bother accepting the results of these experiments and continue following models for reason other than accuracy, that's hardly the fault of the field of study. See the movie Behind the Curve on folks doing perfectly valid experiments and completely ignoring the results: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve Clip (ensure unmuted): * https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/sjeoqd/flatearther_accidentally_proves_the_earth_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/sjeoqd/flatearthe... * https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1559907302483935237 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1559907302483935237

by mekoka 3y ago

throw0101c 3y ago

What was the controllable with Eddington? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment Einstein's models made a prediction, people 'tested' that prediction in Nature, and it turned out accurate. General theory has made other predictions, and empirical observations have found them to be accurate as well. Plenty of "real" science is/was done outside of controlled experiments in a lab. A phenomena was going to happen (e.g., tax law changes): some economic models predicted X would happen, and some predicted Y would. We can see which were more accurate and which were falsified: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment Rotterdam is running an experiment right now with regards to real estate markets and regulation: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers * https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/06/buy-to-let-ban-is-good-for-first-time-buyers-but-bad-for-tenants/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/06/buy-to-let-ban-is-good-for-... Every time the Federal Reserve makes a policy change there are people running their models on what will happen, and if their models are right they make a lot of money, and if they're wrong they lose a lot of money: > But why was Gross betting so heavily against Treasuries? Brad DeLong tries to rationalize[1] Gross’s behavior in terms of a coherent story about an impending U.S. recovery, which would lift us out of the liquidity trap. But Gross wasn’t saying anything like that. Instead, he was claiming that the Fed’s asset purchases — QE2 — were holding rates down, and warned that the impending spike in rates when QE2 ended would derail recovery. > So why did he believe all that? It all comes down, I’d argue, to liquidity trap denial. > Since 2008 the basic logic of the economic situation has been that the private sector is trying to run a huge surplus, and the public sector isn’t willing to run a corresponding deficit. The result is an economy awash in desired savings with nowhere to go. This in turn means that budget deficits aren’t competing with private borrowing, and therefore need not drive up interest rates. This isn’t hindsight; it’s what I and others have been saying since the very beginning[2]. * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/the-pimco-perplex/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0... If people don't want to bother accepting the results of these experiments and continue following models for reason other than accuracy, that's hardly the fault of the field of study. See the movie Behind the Curve on folks doing perfectly valid experiments and completely ignoring the results: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve Clip (ensure unmuted): * https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/sjeoqd/flatearther_accidentally_proves_the_earth_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/sjeoqd/flatearthe... * https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1559907302483935237 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1559907302483935237