tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post5335422200377316430..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Four levels of scienceNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68143092762684377322013-07-12T01:47:37.866-04:002013-07-12T01:47:37.866-04:00I personally think that the best experiments are t...I personally think that the best experiments are those conducted by people like Derren Brown, who get individuals to volunteer, or even pay, to have psychological experiments performed on them, including ones which would be deemed unethical if done in an academic context.<br /><br />Consider how to apply this to economics please. :-)Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90308686517750041592013-07-12T01:45:31.010-04:002013-07-12T01:45:31.010-04:00Reasoning from undeniable a priori truth is great ...Reasoning from undeniable a priori truth is great and all, but the only results you get are results in pure mathematics -- tautologies. You can't say anything about the real world.<br /><br />This is because the only undeniable a priori truths are *logical* truths.<br /><br />Everything else -- even the principle of continuity, which underlies most of empirical science -- are only working assumptions, subject to being disproved. (By the "principle of continuity" I mean the idea that things are basically governed by the same physical laws today as they were yesterday.)Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85140817797882883702013-07-12T01:40:28.564-04:002013-07-12T01:40:28.564-04:00Worth noting, Noah, the Principle of Superposition...Worth noting, Noah, the Principle of Superposition does not apply to large portions of physics. (Because large portions of physics are nonlinear.)<br /><br />Ask any astronomer: it matters where your observation point is. A lot!Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51274846102025440902013-07-07T19:11:27.550-04:002013-07-07T19:11:27.550-04:00A lot of sciences rely on natural experiments. Loo...A lot of sciences rely on natural experiments. Look at evolutionary biology or cosmological astronomy. Careful observation tends to reveal patterns. Look at chemistry. All those experiments studying atomic weights and elemental properties revealed the period table of the elements.<br /><br />The problem with economics is that it works in supreme isolation. It completely ignores accounting, which is like a chemist ignoring energy conservation. It completely ignores anthropology, which is like a biologist ignoring zoology or physiology. It's just that economists ignores the real world, but they ignore what we already know.Kaleberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283840743310507878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32351045276599751052013-07-06T22:50:05.082-04:002013-07-06T22:50:05.082-04:00Thanks you. This was a great pair with this articl...Thanks you. This was a great pair with this article on the difference between science and engineering. <br /><br />http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/07/the-difference-between-science-and-engineering/<br /><br />Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33414925950622250302013-07-04T13:09:35.730-04:002013-07-04T13:09:35.730-04:00Excellent intellectual article. But I have some co...Excellent intellectual article. But I have some comments.<br /><br />Although history is a kind of first dimension of some perfect typologies, I would suggest that in the case of economics and science there are actually other better-preferred choices.<br /><br />For example, where there is logical validity, the dependence is on logical coherence, which tends to be divided into formal and applicational coherence. This distinction is especially important in the upcoming era in which people more and more often rely on computing systems for their daily significance.<br /><br />Other forms of coherence exist which are also analogical with history, e.g. coherent experiments (physics) and coherent perspective (biology).<br /><br />Whatever the taxa, it is important to realize what the highest-tier element is, before reducing the other elements to variations of an unknown. Of course, typically it IS known to some degree within the discipline, in some ways there is no avoiding this.<br /><br />But the interdependence of the systems depends on the common factors which have been established as first-tier methods. If experimentation is against perspective, or if logic is against experiment, then there must be some means to combine the disciplines, or some of the coherence is lost. OR it could be argued that decoherence is a virtue, as has been cited in economics.<br /><br />So, there is an initial pattern of coherence / decoherence, and a secondary pattern of formal / applicational. It becomes important to develop one of two things: [1] Formal Coherence, or [2] Incoherent Applications, otherwise Formal Incoherence results. But there is one exception (the remaining category): Coherent Applications. This is an understated claim among all the sciences.<br /><br />My book on coherent systems is highly recommended. It is called The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (not the original Philosopher's Toolkit). It was published earlier this year.Nathan Coppedgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272730626911068222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78360832977506608542013-07-04T07:11:28.355-04:002013-07-04T07:11:28.355-04:00According to your scheme, a randomized trial, eg i...According to your scheme, a randomized trial, eg in medicine, is a "natural experiment" because it is closer to "some sort of randomized variation, but no ability to control the environment" than it is to "control of the environment" in a lab setting. Deliberate and systematic randomization may turn out to be the greatest advance of the 20th century, but it remains underused, even in its stronghold of medicine, and is neglected altogether in your scheme. The core is that you only need to control ONE THING, but if you randomize systematically, and have enough data points, everything else, while not physically controlled, will cancel out.Joanna Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14213528673854230496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55077716042621717772013-07-03T22:06:22.241-04:002013-07-03T22:06:22.241-04:00"Morgenstern's On the Accuracy of Economi..."Morgenstern's On the Accuracy of Economic Observations talks about this. In physics and engineering there is always measurement error, but the errors are normally distributed and thus the mean can be estimated. "<br /><br />Sigh. Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43946749477394362132013-07-03T22:05:27.521-04:002013-07-03T22:05:27.521-04:00Noah: "Well, there you have it. Note that I ...Noah: "Well, there you have it. Note that I was originally trained as a physicist, and in physics, the Principle of Superposition assures you that any conclusion with internal validity will have external validity as well (i.e., the real-world motion of objects is just assumed to be caused by a straightforward combination of things that you can observe in labs). This is less so in other sciences, and much less so in social sciences like psychology and econ. "<br /><br />Another way to put it is that it took physics a loooooooooong time to get to the point where they could make statements like that, with a decent chance of being right (remember, 'objects in motion tend to come to rest' was a physical law for a long time).Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-71949307135667844352013-07-03T16:33:26.033-04:002013-07-03T16:33:26.033-04:00Except that Noah specifically uses the word "...Except that Noah specifically uses the word "Normally" to distinguish statistics in the absence of natural experiments from statistics with natural experiments. "Normally" means level 2; you are talking about level 3.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12866136113454261245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9335251789249018272013-07-03T09:10:27.172-04:002013-07-03T09:10:27.172-04:00"Science" is based on assumptions, calle..."Science" is based on assumptions, called "laws", which do not fail when experiments are run (neither natural nor lab experiments). These laws allow us humans to manipulate in order to reliably get desired results (put on the gas, the car goes faster; almost always).<br /><br />The goal of economics "as a science" is to create policies with predictable outcomes, reliably. <br />Policy can be political, or individual, or any organization (i.e. fund manager, any business).<br /><br />The failure is in the reliability. The desired economic outcome is, in most cases, a higher than average return on investment (of capital or labor or both). <br /><br />At a company level, a huge policy is wages -- how much to pay to the employees for "the best results" (usually net long term profit).<br />Another policy involves pricing; another is purchasing; yet another is product development; and of course marketing.<br /><br />Most blogs focus on political policy -- what are the best gov't policies? <br /><br />The problem in all cases is that the decision makers choosing the policy are manipulating human agents in order to maximize some benefit for the policy decision maker, but that benefit is seldom the same goal as the human agents have for themselves. <br />Unlike gasoline molecules who always accept being blown apart for the purpose of powering a car, humans will choose differently over time.<br /><br />It might be that a policy maker finds an economic "law" which works.<br />When that policy is chosen, it manipulates the agents in some way other than the optimizing of the agents, which the agents learn about over time. And the agents change their behavior. And the "law" fails, because it was only really an assumption.<br /><br />[Such as ... US house prices always go up. ]<br />Any discovered economic law (=assumption), that can be used by some in order to make more money, will be used, which will change behavior such that the assumption fails.<br /><br />Thus economic science can never be successful over the long term at the type of manipulation that non-human sciences can aspire to, so it is better to not even call economics a "science" -- and lots of math is used to obfuscate this truth. Which more humans are understanding, tho there are still many who don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-22068681423818250832013-07-03T07:38:31.370-04:002013-07-03T07:38:31.370-04:00Regarding lab experiments, Noah may want to consul...Regarding lab experiments, Noah may want to consult Latour and Woolgar's classic "Laboratory Life" in which the actual messiness of science in biology labs is described. It's just a small step from the old point about the high school chemistry labs in which no student ever gets the actual predicted outcome of any experiment, but chemistry teachers normalize results through a variety of techniques that preserve the validity of chemistry's theoretical foundations!BPiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14819704139962908235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49229082051942381702013-07-03T07:01:58.346-04:002013-07-03T07:01:58.346-04:00With Physics & Chemistry (and by extension Eng...With Physics & Chemistry (and by extension Engineering) there are fundamentals which are undisputed (at least on the level they are being looked at). There is usually a theoretical story to go along with an experiment, and some rationalization of the results. Plus, you have physics, chemistry & engineering MAKING USEFUL THINGS. <br /><br />My family likes to say that physicists aren't 100% sure how flying happens. I say, maybe not 100%, but close enough that they make safe planes!<br /><br />I think you have to look at the results from economists' recommendations. Austerity has not helped, by any measure. Deregulation produced significant problems. Expansive monetary policy has not been inflationary (imagine if mortgage rates had been just 5% over the past 2 years - where would housing be then?). Then there are the pure political projections - sell stocks in 2009, they're going further down on fears of the Obama. You can look at how predictions fared, and then what went into the prediction.jimcasertahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07599825260220591595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17014034688495206052013-07-03T05:37:30.485-04:002013-07-03T05:37:30.485-04:00As a father of five, I can't but agree - dad i...As a father of five, I can't but agree - dad is always right :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27809777989056245182013-07-03T05:23:42.125-04:002013-07-03T05:23:42.125-04:00This is an excellent post, Noah Smith. However, I ...This is an excellent post, Noah Smith. However, I think it might have benefited if you had read this book by the late David Freedman, who was a Professor of Statistics at UC Berkeley.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Models-Causal-Inference-Dialogue/dp/0521195004/Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80297759161219216102013-07-03T03:35:23.653-04:002013-07-03T03:35:23.653-04:00Your understanding of the word "deep", a...Your understanding of the word "deep", and mine are clearly completely different.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72364788197562106642013-07-03T03:28:33.226-04:002013-07-03T03:28:33.226-04:00P.S. I think you cannot really rank sciences from ...P.S. I think you cannot really rank sciences from hard to soft unless you subdivide them. Is cosmology really a hard science?reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89600582717758127192013-07-03T03:26:46.046-04:002013-07-03T03:26:46.046-04:00Bill Ellis - is ecology part of of biology?
Becaus...Bill Ellis - is ecology part of of biology?<br />Because I think economics should be a sub-discipline of ecology. That it isn't says a lot about human hubris.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56226026837895882102013-07-03T01:43:10.973-04:002013-07-03T01:43:10.973-04:00ARGH!
I got trolled... ;-)ARGH!<br /><br />I got trolled... ;-)Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-40446838664385421942013-07-02T21:40:17.052-04:002013-07-02T21:40:17.052-04:00I love making troll threads on Noahpinion posts......I love making troll threads on Noahpinion posts...Aziznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38677141936731354262013-07-02T21:07:44.761-04:002013-07-02T21:07:44.761-04:00Noah,
You often take shots at Econ for pretendin...Noah, <br /><br />You often take shots at Econ for pretending to be more of a science than it has a right to. ( It is not so good at predicting stuff is it ? )<br /><br />We know it will never be physics but I always wonder, how do you rank Econ among the "soft sciences " ?<br /><br />Here is my ranking of Sciences, hard to soft... <br /><br />1) chemistry/ physics <br /><br />2) biology<br /><br />3) psychology <br /><br />4) sociology/economics<br /><br />5) social sciences / political science. <br /><br />I put Econ tied at the 4 spot . <br /><br />They are all useful. But the softer the science, the more it seems to be prone to generating irrational hopes... in experts and laypeople alike. <br /><br />Bill Ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76386524897294613432013-07-02T20:38:44.435-04:002013-07-02T20:38:44.435-04:00They used to call it a moral science. I always li...They used to call it a moral science. I always liked that description. But then they also called economics political economy. The emphasis was on policy, on the material interests of people. Browsing through my old copy of The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics I was amused to read: "Neoclassical economics sees the delivery of individual consumption as the main object of the economic system."Luke Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290760894780619646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56329122782085158992013-07-02T20:35:42.527-04:002013-07-02T20:35:42.527-04:00I disagree with your first sentence. To me the bi...I disagree with your first sentence. To me the biggest obstacle to economics becoming a science* is that it is humans studying humans. <br /><br />Humans are fundamentally game players and the winners will change the rules as they like. If we did have really good measurements that allowed us to reliably predict our behavior that information would be used by some to take personal advantage of the situation causing others to change that behavior. <br /><br />We are Heisenbeings .<br /><br />* It depends on what you mean by science, Econ is a soft science . Bill Ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76531375404691584922013-07-02T19:45:24.883-04:002013-07-02T19:45:24.883-04:00I wrote something similar some time back in What e...I wrote something similar some time back in <a href="http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/what-evidence-is-convincing/" rel="nofollow">What evidence is convincing</a>. I didn't have references to this Leamer dialogue though.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-62131413015156637332013-07-02T17:31:54.542-04:002013-07-02T17:31:54.542-04:00Hey Noah,
Have you read Philip Mirowski's ...Hey Noah,<br /><br />Have you read Philip Mirowski's 'More Heat than Light'? I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on his thesis: that 'neoclassical economics' is strongly influenced by an attendent desire to imitate physics.<br /><br />Personally, I'm fascinated by the number of economists who write on the philosophy of science -- Jevons's 'Principles of Science' is an especially remarkable Victorian artifact. He apparently spent more time on that work than his 'Theory', and considered it to be of greater importance.<br /><br />Anyway, I enjoy your blog (+Twitter) tremendously. Always thought provoking.<br /><br />CheersAgwhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05156438823361268919noreply@blogger.com