3 ms·

All this talk of Krugman reminds me that there's an awful lot of scientism out there today -- beliefs masquerading as science. The scientific method has been th

All this talk of Krugman reminds me that there's an awful lot of scientism out there today -- beliefs masquerading as science. The scientific method has been thrown out the window in this regard. If someone is going to propose a theory they claim is proven in someway, I want them to also identify the specific event that if it occurs will disprove their theory. The whole economics profession is filled with scientism, but my two pet peeve issues on this are stimulus spending to fix the economy and man made global warming. For them to be viable scientific theories, there must be an observable event that if actually observed would disprove the theories. Without that, they are just beliefs. Nothing against beliefs, but let's not call them scientific theories.

snowwrestler 14y ago
Global warming is disprovable at numerous points of evidence. - Disprove the absorbtion and emission spectra of greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and water vapor. - Disprove correlations between measurements of fossil fuel usage and measurements of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations. - Disprove measurements of changing carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere. - Show that the oceans absorb CO2 more quickly that currently estimated. - Show that insolation has recently increased more than previously thought. - Show that measurements of recent global temperature rise are wrong. etc.
pcvarmint 14y ago
http://library.mises.org/books/Helmut%20Schoeck/Scientism%20and%20Values.pdf http://library.mises.org/books/Helmut%20Schoeck/Scientism%20...
parasubvert 14y ago
This is wrong, though I empathize. Social scientists come up with useful models that help explain events and behaviours, that aren't disproven by empirical evidence. There are plenty of ways to falsify a social science theory: wait long enough, or study enough data, and you'll amass enough empirical evidence to determine whether your theory holds up or not. Of course, this does not mean it is proven - there may be a falsifiable data point some day. But that's why we call it a theory. Environmental science is somewhat harder because the timescales are much longer than we have existed. But we also have well established ways of estimating the climate of ancient eras. This is why global warming is considered a scientific theory. In economics, there is, for example, a lot of evidence these days in favor of the standard Keynesian IS-LM model for a macroeconomy in liquidity trap conditions, and a dearth of evidence supporting neoclassical models and Real Business Cycle theory. This is almost a paradigm re-shift, in that a previously abandoned paradigm (by many), thought by some to have been falsified, is actually proving more predictive with respect to actual events than previously recognized. Unfortunately economics is closely intertwined with politics and ideology which doesn't mix well with science -- thus the profession is in crisis. An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths. Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology. This is what Von Mises and Rothbard (founder of the US Libertarian party) believed, and they've been a common source of contra-Krugman arguments.
- lake99 14y ago
  I'm with you on global warming. > An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths. This explains in what way: http://mises.org/daily/2025 http://mises.org/daily/2025 > Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology. Austrian economists don't ignore evidence. The evidence is interpreted according to their ideological framework, just as any other kind of economist does. It's 2002, house prices are rising rapidly. I have money to spare. What do I do? None of the Austrian economists said "ignore the prices". Instead, they used that data and said "bubble coming up".
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    > Austrian economists don't ignore evidence. I meant in terms of revising their theory to improve its usefulness in the face of new evidence.
podperson 14y ago
Economics is a long way from, say, climate science in terms of its demonstrated ability to make useful predictions. We routinely get advance warning of both short term weather effects (such as storms) and long term climate effects (such as unusually dry seasons). The effects of these predictions have been measurable and palpable. Economists tend to struggle even to agree on post-hoc explanations of well-documented past events. E.g. serious economists still argue over the root causes of the Great Depression. Tarring Economic theory and climate science with the same "Scientism" brush is unfair if not downright dishonest. And even Krugman's economic predictions are testable. The linked article was an example of him opining outside his area of expertise.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Global warming is disprovable at numerous points of evidence. - Disprove the absorbtion and emission spectra of greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and water vapor. - Disprove correlations between measurements of fossil fuel usage and measurements of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations. - Disprove measurements of changing carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere. - Show that the oceans absorb CO2 more quickly that currently estimated. - Show that insolation has recently increased more than previously thought. - Show that measurements of recent global temperature rise are wrong. etc.

pcvarmint 14y ago

http://library.mises.org/books/Helmut%20Schoeck/Scientism%20and%20Values.pdf http://library.mises.org/books/Helmut%20Schoeck/Scientism%20...

parasubvert 14y ago

This is wrong, though I empathize. Social scientists come up with useful models that help explain events and behaviours, that aren't disproven by empirical evidence. There are plenty of ways to falsify a social science theory: wait long enough, or study enough data, and you'll amass enough empirical evidence to determine whether your theory holds up or not. Of course, this does not mean it is proven - there may be a falsifiable data point some day. But that's why we call it a theory. Environmental science is somewhat harder because the timescales are much longer than we have existed. But we also have well established ways of estimating the climate of ancient eras. This is why global warming is considered a scientific theory. In economics, there is, for example, a lot of evidence these days in favor of the standard Keynesian IS-LM model for a macroeconomy in liquidity trap conditions, and a dearth of evidence supporting neoclassical models and Real Business Cycle theory. This is almost a paradigm re-shift, in that a previously abandoned paradigm (by many), thought by some to have been falsified, is actually proving more predictive with respect to actual events than previously recognized. Unfortunately economics is closely intertwined with politics and ideology which doesn't mix well with science -- thus the profession is in crisis. An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths. Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology. This is what Von Mises and Rothbard (founder of the US Libertarian party) believed, and they've been a common source of contra-Krugman arguments.

lake99 14y ago
I'm with you on global warming. > An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths. This explains in what way: http://mises.org/daily/2025 http://mises.org/daily/2025 > Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology. Austrian economists don't ignore evidence. The evidence is interpreted according to their ideological framework, just as any other kind of economist does. It's 2002, house prices are rising rapidly. I have money to spare. What do I do? None of the Austrian economists said "ignore the prices". Instead, they used that data and said "bubble coming up".
- parasubvert 14y ago
  > Austrian economists don't ignore evidence. I meant in terms of revising their theory to improve its usefulness in the face of new evidence.

podperson 14y ago

Economics is a long way from, say, climate science in terms of its demonstrated ability to make useful predictions. We routinely get advance warning of both short term weather effects (such as storms) and long term climate effects (such as unusually dry seasons). The effects of these predictions have been measurable and palpable. Economists tend to struggle even to agree on post-hoc explanations of well-documented past events. E.g. serious economists still argue over the root causes of the Great Depression. Tarring Economic theory and climate science with the same "Scientism" brush is unfair if not downright dishonest. And even Krugman's economic predictions are testable. The linked article was an example of him opining outside his area of expertise.