4 ms·

It wouldn't work. The scientists share a common goal of discerning the truth, or else finding a model which more accurately predicts the universe, which is effe

It wouldn't work. The scientists share a common goal of discerning the truth, or else finding a model which more accurately predicts the universe, which is effectively the same thing. Sure, it's much better for them if it turns out that their model is the victor, but ultimately either side "winning" is good for the scientists because they've collaboratively discovered something important in order to determine the winner. Politicians are different. Say some politicians on the left and right got together to study questions like "how does changing billionaire tax rates affect jobs" or "is buying homes and other assistance for the homeless a net savings." No outcome, even with absolute, rock solid evidence, would be acceptable to at least one side of the study. Imagine a Republican coming back to the floor to say "wellp, my committee studied it, and it turns out that dramatically raising taxes on billionaires is just fantastic for America! Who would've thought?" He'd be out of office just as soon as the next election could happen, and maybe sooner. Being right and having evidence is convenient for politicians but is neither sufficient nor necessary.

brutusborn 3y ago
I think your example is a case where it would work well. Imagine Party A and Party B both produce models to estimate the effects of tax changes on job growth. Based on these models each Party produces a policy proposal. Party A is in power so their proposal is chosen. This is now a natural experiment to test both models! Data collected after the policy is implemented can now be used to judge the validity of both models. If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. Why doesn't this occur in the real world? Politicians know that many of their policies are not predicated on fact but on pragmatic political considerations. Revealing their ignorance by publishing models is just adding to the attack surface that their opponents can use to criticize them. Thus as long as there are no competing parties producing explainable (in the modelling sense) policy, there is no advantage to explaining policy in this way, it is all downside. It would take a very courageous group to change the paradigm, and they would probably be ridiculed because they would need to reveal their ignorance when publishing their models.
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  > If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. "Trickle down economics works" suggests that this is not what happens if a model is shown to be wrong.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I get what you mean, but there is no model that is used as a basis for trickle down policy, so it cannot be shown to be wrong. There are lots of studies and papers and economic tomes that argue for trickle down, but no model that a politician points to.

brutusborn 3y ago

I think your example is a case where it would work well. Imagine Party A and Party B both produce models to estimate the effects of tax changes on job growth. Based on these models each Party produces a policy proposal. Party A is in power so their proposal is chosen. This is now a natural experiment to test both models! Data collected after the policy is implemented can now be used to judge the validity of both models. If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. Why doesn't this occur in the real world? Politicians know that many of their policies are not predicated on fact but on pragmatic political considerations. Revealing their ignorance by publishing models is just adding to the attack surface that their opponents can use to criticize them. Thus as long as there are no competing parties producing explainable (in the modelling sense) policy, there is no advantage to explaining policy in this way, it is all downside. It would take a very courageous group to change the paradigm, and they would probably be ridiculed because they would need to reveal their ignorance when publishing their models.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago
> If a model is shown to be wrong, the Party either needs to explain the inconsistency or change their model to suit. "Trickle down economics works" suggests that this is not what happens if a model is shown to be wrong.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I get what you mean, but there is no model that is used as a basis for trickle down policy, so it cannot be shown to be wrong. There are lots of studies and papers and economic tomes that argue for trickle down, but no model that a politician points to.