Andrew Gelman On The Economic Science Profession.
Professor Gelman is the Director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.
From his Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference in addition to Social Science weblog (bolded bits, our emphasis):
A quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.
Taking on the Nobel Prize Winner: An Update On That "Middle Class White Guys Are Dying" Report
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
"Big Oregano Strikes Again"
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Elon Musk Frenemy Peter Thiel is writing some other book!
See also our posts:
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Modelling vs. Science
Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 dependent patch nigh in addition to dearest to our jaded hearts, some links below.
If an experiment is non reproducible it is non science.
If an hypothesis is non falsifiable it is non science.
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
"Scientists Can’t Replicate AI Studies. That’s Bad News"
We're amongst Popper in addition to Feynman on the overarching premise: If what you're doing isn't falsifiable, if what you're doing isn't replicable, what you're doing isn't science.
And if what you're doing was funded past times Earth inwards whatever agency the police should consider the resulting code to last owned past times the public.
There, 3 unlike concerns dispensed amongst inwards 2 sentences.
Next!
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
The Next Time Someone Tells You Economics is a Science Remind Them of Mendeleev
From the Royal Society of Chemistry:
I summarized every bit follows:
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Nitrogen Upgraded, Potash Target Lowered; Ununquadium Decayed (AGU, CF; TRA; POT)
To my hear i of the goals of scientific discipline or investing should last plenty mastery in addition to agreement to enable prediction. The greatest instance inwards scientific discipline was belike Dmitri Mendeleev's creation of the periodic tabular array in addition to his insight that he should travel out spaces for elements non yet discovered.
His prediction of the properties of gallium, germanium in addition to scandium contrasts amongst pseudo-science inwards that it is testable.
If you lot always desire to piss an economist off, enjoin them that exactly because they utilisation a tool of scientific discipline (mathematics), that solitary doesn't brand economic science a science. Science is falsifiable. Mendeleev had a swing-and-a-miss on the atomic weight of tellurium, the prediction was falsified, showing that this is a truthful science.
Ununquadium is chemical ingredient 114, discovered inwards 1998. We're at nowadays upwards to 118, ununoctium, amongst a gap at 117. The prediction of the properties of the undiscovered chemical ingredient includes a half-life of 3 nanoseconds.
This ramble was triggered past times a news concluding nighttime on alternatives to gallium (in CIGS) in addition to tellurium inwards CdTe sparse films. It was the kickoff fourth dimension I realized an declaration could last made that Mendeleev is the manful someone nurture of thin-film solar. Continuing our trip through the periodic table, on to the nitrogen story...
And many more, utilisation the "search blog" box, upper left if interested.
From his Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference in addition to Social Science weblog (bolded bits, our emphasis):
A quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.
Like Pee Wee Herman, human activeness similar a jerkPreviously from the SMCISS blog:
And learn on the trip the lite fantastic flooring allow your torso work
I wanted to follow upwards on a remark from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE
Taking on the Nobel Prize Winner: An Update On That "Middle Class White Guys Are Dying" Report
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
"Big Oregano Strikes Again"
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Elon Musk Frenemy Peter Thiel is writing some other book!
See also our posts:
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Modelling vs. Science
If an experiment is non reproducible it is non science.
If an hypothesis is non falsifiable it is non science.
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
"Scientists Can’t Replicate AI Studies. That’s Bad News"
And if what you're doing was funded past times Earth inwards whatever agency the police should consider the resulting code to last owned past times the public.
There, 3 unlike concerns dispensed amongst inwards 2 sentences.
Next!
from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
The Next Time Someone Tells You Economics is a Science Remind Them of Mendeleev
What is a score of a cracking scientist? Good scientists uncovering novel information in addition to brand feel of it, linking it to other data. They may learn farther past times giving an explanation of this linked information which, perhaps non immediately, other scientists convey every bit a right explanation. However the outstanding scientist goes farther inwards predicting consequences of his ideas which tin last tested. This boldness identifies the cracking scientist if the predictions are afterwards constitute to last accurate. One such someone was Russian pharmacist Dmitri Mendeleev.....from a few years ago almost the 2 modes of pop-economics reasoning:
You convey some fact (or stylized fact) almost the world, in addition to and then you lot either (1) utilisation people-are-rational-and-who-are-we-to-judge-others reasoning to explicate why some weird-looking demeanour is inwards fact rational, or (2) utilisation technocratic reasoning to fence that some seemingly reasonable demeanour is, inwards fact, inefficient.The context, every bit reported past times Felix Salmon, was a Chicago eating seat whose owner, Grant Achatz, was selling tickets “at a fixed cost in addition to are in addition to then gratuitous to last resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market.” Economists Justin Wolfers in addition to Betsey Stevenson objected. They wanted Achatz to increase his prices. By keeping prices low, he was, apparently, violating the principles of democracy: “‘It’s democratic inwards theory, but non inwards practice,’ said Wolfers . . . Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should ‘consider selling tickets to the highest bidder in addition to giving the extra coin to charity.'”
I summarized every bit follows:
In this case, Wolfers in addition to Whitehouse are going through some contortions to fence (2). In a unlike mood, however, they powerfulness learn for (1). I don’t fully sympathise the rules for when people learn amongst declaration 1 in addition to when they learn amongst 2, but a quick dominion of pollex is that when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, an economist volition defend the demeanour every bit beingness the meat of morality, but when someone seems to last doing something nice, an economist volition enhance the bar in addition to fence that he’s non beingness prissy at all.In comments, Alex wrote:
I’m guessing that if Grant Achatz were to implement the real same pricing policy but verbalize almost how he’s doing it exclusively out of greed, that a bunch of economists would demo upwards in addition to explicate how this was truly the most moral in addition to democratic option.
(1) in addition to (2) are typically distinguished inwards economic science textbooks every bit examples of positive in addition to normative reasoning, respectively. The onetime aims at describing the observed demeanour inwards terms of a specific model (e.g. rationality), seemingly without whatever endeavour at subjective judgement. The latter takes the onetime every bit given in addition to applies a subjective social welfare business office to the outcomes inwards guild to judge, whether the outcome could last improved upon with, say, unlike institutional organization or a policy intervention.To which I replied:
Yup, in addition to the commons dominion seems to last to utilisation positive reasoning when someone seems to last acting similar a jerk, in addition to normative reasoning when someone seems to last doing something nice. This seems strange to me. Why assume that, exactly because someone is acting similar a jerk, that he is acting thence efficiently that his decisions can’t last improved, only understood? And why assume that, exactly because someone seems to last doing something nice, that “unintended consequences” etc. ensure he’s non doing a adept project of it. To me, this is contrarianism run wild. I’m non maxim that Wolfers is a knee-jerk contrarian; rather I’m guessing that he’s next default behaviors without thinking much almost it.This is an awkward topic to write about. I’m non maxim I think economists are hateful people; they exactly seem to receive got a default trend of thought which is a piddling perverse.
In the traditional persuasion of Freudian psychiatrists, which no demeanour tin last taken at human face upwards value, in addition to it takes a Freudian analyst to decode the truthful meaning. Similarly, inwards the globe of pop economics, or neoclassical economics, whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem good, or generous (for example, non maxing out your prices at a pop restaurant) is seen to last damaging of Earth good—“unintended consequences” in addition to all that—, piece whatever demeanour that powerfulness seem mean, or selfish, is truly for the greater good.
Let’s unpack this inwards 5 directions, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the sociology of scientific professions, politics, the logic of rhetoric, in addition to the logic of statistics.
From the standpoint of the philosophy of science, pop economic science or neoclassical economic science is, similar Freudian theory, unfalsifiable. Any demeanour tin last explained every bit rational (motivating economists’ trend 1 above) or every bit beingness opened upwards to improvement (motivating economists’ trend 2 of reasoning). Economists tin play 2 roles: (1) to reassure people that the electrical flow practices are exactly fine in addition to to utilisation economical theory to explicate the hidden benefits arising from seemingly irrational or unkind decisions; or (2) to amend people’s lives through rational in addition to mutual frigidity but effective reasoning (the famous “thinking similar an economist”). For flexible Freudians, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last explained past times exactly almost whatever childhood trauma; in addition to for modern economists, exactly almost whatever demeanour tin last interpreted every bit a rational adaptation—or not. In either case, specific applications of the method tin last falsified—after all, Freudians in addition to neoclassical economists alike are gratuitous to brand empirically testable predictions—but the larger building is unfalsifiable, every bit whatever erroneous prediction tin only last explained every bit an inappropriate application of the theory.
From a sociological perspective, the flexibility of pop-economics reasoning, similar the flexibility of Freudian theory, tin last seen every bit a plus, inwards that it implies a demand for trained specialists, priests who tin know which childhood trauma to utilisation every bit an explanation, or who tin compass upwards one's hear whether to utilisation economics’s explanation 1 or 2. Again, recollect economists’ claims that they think inwards a different, to a greater extent than piercing, agency than other scholars, an mental attitude that is reminiscent of old-school Freudians’ claim to hold back squarely at the mutual frigidity truths of human nature that others can’t handle....MORE Previously from the SMCISS blog:
Nitrogen Upgraded, Potash Target Lowered; Ununquadium Decayed (AGU, CF; TRA; POT)
His prediction of the properties of gallium, germanium in addition to scandium contrasts amongst pseudo-science inwards that it is testable.
If you lot always desire to piss an economist off, enjoin them that exactly because they utilisation a tool of scientific discipline (mathematics), that solitary doesn't brand economic science a science. Science is falsifiable. Mendeleev had a swing-and-a-miss on the atomic weight of tellurium, the prediction was falsified, showing that this is a truthful science.
Ununquadium is chemical ingredient 114, discovered inwards 1998. We're at nowadays upwards to 118, ununoctium, amongst a gap at 117. The prediction of the properties of the undiscovered chemical ingredient includes a half-life of 3 nanoseconds.
This ramble was triggered past times a news concluding nighttime on alternatives to gallium (in CIGS) in addition to tellurium inwards CdTe sparse films. It was the kickoff fourth dimension I realized an declaration could last made that Mendeleev is the manful someone nurture of thin-film solar. Continuing our trip through the periodic table, on to the nitrogen story...
And many more, utilisation the "search blog" box, upper left if interested.
No comments