An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
He's got the 'jealousy/envy' thing going on here Tom:
""Sometimes I think psychologists use all this psychobabble because we have physics envy," he said, grinning. Everyone chuckled.
Though he clearly achieved his goal of lightening the mood, I found myself plagued by his curious turn of phrase. I wondered if psychologists might indeed be jealous of their physicist colleagues, whom nobody doubted were real scientists. "
You need 2 for envy, 3 for jealousy...
I see only 2 here, ie physicists and psychologists... so it would have to be envy...
"science" here might even be another figure of speech creeping in...
I think it may be being used more an ambiguous term than a figure of speech as "word or phrase that has a meaning other than the literal meaning" usually for some effect associated with the literal meaning.
Higher levels of abstraction are often ambiguous with out defining their use in a context precisely.
Abstractions are sets of sets. Logical errors are often committed by identifying the meaning of term denoting a high level of abstraction with a limited number of the included sets.
Complicating this higher levels of abstraction can also serve as figures of speech that are used to include sets not in the commonly understood denotation.
The actual issue here is that "science" means a lot of things to a lot of people. Physicists have a must more precise view of what constitutes a science than most people outside of physics, and so they don't see other disciplines that are different from physics based on these criteria as "real science." This makes some others who regard themselves as "scientists" envious/jealous of physicists. Psychologically it's a superiority/inferiority and dominance/submission kind of thing.
The basic difference is between science being a particular type of body of knowledge with a well defined structure like a general theory and science being the application of a method.
The author is admitting than psych doesn't have a general theory based on experiment for example but rather uses scientific method for case study that can sometimes be generalized to a degree. For that reason he argues that psych is "scientific."
This is the case not only with psychology but also economics and the other social sciences. They are "scientific" to the degree that they legitimately employ scientific method in gaining knowledge. But none of them are sciences in the sense of physics, for none of them conform to the criteria of physics and won't without a fuller development of biophysics and psychophysics that folds these disciplines into physics, if that ever happens.
The reality is a left over of the sciences having spun off from philosophy. The various disciples are desirous of making that distinction clear and physics has done the best job of it owing to the nature of the subject matter. The rest of the "sciences" still overlap with philosophy to one degree or other, and this overlap is considerably more than most practicing those disciples would like to have to admit. So they emphasize the "scientific" aspect of the discipline and are in denial of the speculative dimension of it, which may be considerable.
Like the whole 'inequality!' issue is materialist...
iow they way I view these 'inequality!' people is they would be satisfied if everybody had the same amount of munnie... to them this material measure would result in 'equality!'....
But then what about for instance the alt-right where those people dont look at material at all and instead focus on genetics and theorize that some genetic compositions are superior to others...
But then they will point to material outcomes as criteria to determine said superiority...
This also gets back to this "jealousy/envy" thing...
Pretty f-ed up.... compared to working in strict material matters...
Generalizing from one example or insufficient examples is called the fallacy of hasty generalization, one of the many informal fallacies that dovetail with cognitive bias.
Case1: you have 2 people (and a non human element), 2 has some element 1 doesnt and 1 isnt happy about it... that is lets term it "envy"....
Case2: then you have 3 people, 1 is looking at an interaction between 2 and 3 and doesnt like something about the interaction between 2 and 3... lets term that jealousy...
Matt, I could just as well make the case that jealously and even are about the Ten Commandments, with jealously concerned with not coveting a neighbor's wife and envy not coveting a neighbor's goods.
Meaning is base on rules for the use of signs as symbols. In ordinary language these rules are learned in gaining fluency and mastering them is a mark of fluency in a language.
These rules are only partially explicit, e.g., in grammar and dictionary meanings but the use of the rules is shown by the intersecting contexts in which terms are used. For example, in addition to denotation affecting meaning, there is also connotation. So different terms with essentially the same denotation may differ in connotation.
Wittgenstein uses what he calls language-games to illustrate this. Games are rule-based. As he points out some games have very strict rules and some loose ones. There are even games where some terms function as wild cards. He constructs language games to illustrate how a single terms plays a role in quite different language-games.
There are no strict rules for using terms like "envy" and "jealousy" Sometimes they can be used interchangeable without affecting the meaning, but sometimes one is to be preferred over the other in terms of context, like jealously involving interpersonal relationships and envy involving stuff. But informal rules admit exceptions.
One encounters this is learning a foreign language, where two terms are close in meaning but fluent speakers would prefer one over another in a particular kind of context. It's difficult mastering this. But a fluent person can usually determine what someone who is not fluent is driving at when the come close but don't use the world as a fluent speaker would. In other words, there is enough implicit information to suffice for one who knows the implicit rules very well from long exposure.
This is also an issue in translation. The translator really needs to be fluent in both languages, and in translating historical texts, the translator also has to know how the use of terms changes historically. This is also true across dialects. Indian English uses some terms differently than American English, for example.
A social science is NOT a science but a sitcom Comment on David B. Feldman on ‘Is Psychology Really a Science?’
The so-called social sciences have been identified by Feynman as cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”
What is missing is the true theory, with scientific truth well-defined as material and formal consistency. The problem is this, psychologists, for example, know that they do not satisfy scientific standards but they insist nonetheless on the title social sciences. It has always been quite obvious that Freud’s storytelling and adoption of Greek myth had not much to do with science but more with a modern alternative to religion/superstition and with a new format for the entertainment industry. They similarity of a therapy setting and a sitcom simply cannot be overlooked.
All problems would end immediately if the social sciences could stop calling themselves sciences. For whatever reason, they cannot. And because science relies on self-government and the voluntary adherence to scientific ethics and because there is no such thing as a science police who expels cargo cult sciences and jails fake scientists the so-called social sciences continue with what is in commonplace terms a fraud.
As far as economics defines itself as a social science, the same untenable situation prevails. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept profit wrong. It is fraudulent to present this indefensible proto-scientific rubbish as science.#2
Because economists lack the true theory their economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundation since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. In order to become a science, economics needs a paradigm shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true systemic macrofoundations. Economics is NOT a social science but a system science.
The simple reason why economics is a failed science is that both orthodox and heterodox economists share the foundational self-delusion that economics is a social science.
Until this day, economists have NOT gotten the foundational concepts of their subject matter, i.e. profit and income, right. This is like medieval physics before the foundational concept of energy was properly understood.#3
When economists are told that economics does not satisfy the scientific standards of material and formal consistency they invariably fall back on J. S. Mill’s slogan of economics as ‘inexact and separate science’. This, of course, is merely one of economists’ numerous unacceptable excuses.#4 There is NO such thing as an inexact and separate science. There is only science and non-science respectively cargo cult science. The so-called social sciences and economics fall into the latter category.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/05/what-is-so-great-about-cargo-cult.html
#2 The real problem with the economics Nobel https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/09/the-real-problem-with-economics-nobel.html
#3 See ‘Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence’ http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/02/economists-three-layered-scientific.html
#4 See ‘Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses’ http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/01/failed-economics-losers-long-list-of.html
They ARE 'sciences' if the people in that dept of the academe are TRYING to use the scientific method in their approach to reaching understanding...
That doesnt mean they are automatically doing a good job of it...
Most of the people in those depts are not our top people... they are the C+ students who ended up going to college... so you get out what you put in... ie GIGO...
These people are just second rate scientists... thankfully the best people end up going into more successful disciplines... success breeds success... success attracts success....
Economics and some of these other unsuccessful disciplines dont attract the best people...
That doesnt mean these disciplines cant be successful if we would put better people in there...
Tom the words are secondary to what is going on... the phenoms are what is important ... yes we can botch the words/terminology but that doesn't effect what is actually happening...
This is like all of these idiot people going all around trying to figure out what "money!" is ... the terms don't effect the science .... the science (properly) should result in the terms...
Tom the words are secondary to what is going on... the phenoms are what is important ... yes we can botch the words/terminology but that doesn't effect what is actually happening...
In many cases what with think and say is happening or account for it influences what happens next. Words matter.
For example, there is a serious problem when ordinary language terms are "defined" technically in "science." This problem arises owing to imported ambiguity that cannot be excluded simply by technical definition. One has to stick to the definition in the use of the term but that is difficult to do when using ordinary language.
Some "scientists" try to have it both ways. They define ordinary language terms technically and then use the full range of meaning in discourse, and if this is noticed and they are called on it, they revert to the technical definition to show how "scientific" they are being. This results in nonsense rather than science.
Happens all the time in economic, finance, psych, and social science, as well as philosophy. Analytic philosophy was developed in part to point this out.
This is a reason for formalization. But even math cannot eliminate the problems because the connection between the model and and the world has to be stipulated by definitions and these definitions often use ordinary language terms and also depend on stated presumptions involving a worldview that is not formalized.
You say: “Economics and some of these other unsuccessful disciplines dont attract the best people...”
In order to understand the obvious lack of scientific success, it is crucial to realize that there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
Theoretical economics (= science) has been body-snatched by political economists (= agenda pushers). Indeed, it is a fact that political economics does NOT attract the best people. Political economics has achieved NOTHING of scientific value in the past 200+ years. Political economics attracts people that are stupid or corrupt or both.
Science consists of two essential elements: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant) Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.
Science is well-defined since 2000+ years. Economics is a failed science because economists are incompetent scientists. This applies to both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.#1 MMT is part of the mess.
What has been proven is that the formal foundations, i.e. the balances equations, of MMT are false.#2 Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false.
So, how MMTer in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, think and op-ed about the deficit is mostly wrong.#3 Obviously, MMT attracts the wrong folks. These underperformers and storytellers do not even get the elementary math of National Accounting right.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/04/the-stupidity-of-heterodoxy-is-life.html
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/09/rectification-of-mmt-macro-accounting.html
#3 MMT: Redistribution as wellness program http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/10/mmt-redistribution-as-wellness-program.html
"Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = "is gold money?!?!?!"
something can be analyzed by 'the scientific method' but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a 'science'...
I don't always agree with Matt but he is always on point.
We have to stop and examine the meaning of words thoughtfully, if we don't we just end up reinforcing an often wrong status quo. We cannot perpetuate the idea that we can only gain valid knowledge of very few hard sciences, and let's not forget there is a huge share of "pseudo-science" even on hard sciences journals due to the current state of publishing, peer reviewing, institutional pressure and partisan interests.
The problem is not psychology, or physics, the problem is the institutions of the academe themselves and their operational procedure. The scientific method has been reviled due to political and economical circumstances, whether something is a "science" or not is a moot point, what does that even mean?
You ask “Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = ‘is gold money?!?!?!’ something can be analyzed by ‘the scientific method’ but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a ‘science’.”
Psychology is NOT a science, neither is economics. Science is well-defined since 2000+ years by material and formal consistency. Neither psychology nor economics satisfies these criteria. Because of this they are cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.” (Feynman)
The problem with economics is that each year the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is awarded.#1
In order NOT to mislead the general public, the word ‘sciences’ has to be deleted from the title or replaced by ‘cargo cult sciences’.#2
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The real problem with the economics Nobel https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/09/the-real-problem-with-economics-nobel.html
#2 Economics is NOT a science of behavior http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/04/the-writing-on-wall-economics-is-not.html
The ironic thing is that the scientific method is based on skepticism and it's fundamental principle is that hypotheses can be disconfirmed definitively but cannot be confirmed definitively. Every scientific assertion hangs on new data discovery.
However, "science" and "scientific" have acquired a connotation of certainty, and as the standard of knowledge.
This is just another philosophical assumption and it is actually based on magical thinking that has nothing to do with how science actually operates.
I am with Paul Feyerabend on this. Scientism is another form of dogmatism.
This is not to denigrate science as a field or scientific method as a powerful methodology for gaining knowledge. It's against worshipping man-made idols with feet of clay. This is just another form of "supernaturalism" in the derogatory sense. Science prides itself on being "naturalistic," but magical thinking about science is not naturalistic. Waving the wand of scientific method over something doesn't make it scientific in the sense of being certain knowledge. That's just magical thinking.
Scientific method is a tool in the tool box of knowledge instruments. It is a useful and powerful tool, but a just a tool nevertheless, and a tool along with other tools of different qualities. It is not a magic wand or philosopher's stone.
"Science" broadly speaking is the output of scientific method. It includes both the successes and the failures, the failures being discarded so they don't have to occupy time and energy anymore.
But "science" also means the scientific worldview, which is based on naturalism and in one version, reduction to materialism. This worldview can be termed "scientism." It is a philosophy based on philosophical assumptions and is not itself the product of application of scientific method. It is taking some version of scientific method as a foundational norm.
Every layperson who is confronted with the statement: Mr. A has been murdered and you are the murderer, understands immediately the concept of scientific truth. Truth is (i) binary true/false with NOTHING in between, and (ii), truth is objective, that is, provable in principle, and (iii), that it is worth every effort to find out the truth even if we cannot be absolutely sure that we will be successful. As Popper put it “Although nowadays we have given up the idea of absolutely certain knowledge, we have not by any means given up the idea of the search for truth. (Popper)
Admitting that there is no absolute certain knowledge is compatible with the assertion that the Law of the Lever represents certain knowledge. In fact, science is defined as the body of certain knowledge.
While genuine scientists have no problem with the idea of certain knowledge philosophers, who are known for having produced blather instead of knowledge throughout recorded history, desperately try to keep things in the morass between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). This insistence on inconclusiveness is a survival strategy of incompetent scientists and political agenda pushers, in other words, of failed and fake scientists. Needless to emphasize that these folks are the most enthusiastic followers of Feyerabend and tireless proponents of anything goes.
Philosophers, social scientists, and economists are the traditional clientele of political clowns like the younger Feyerabend. How can science keep these folks at bay?
Let us make a thought experiment. There are two aircraft called PHI and SCI waiting on the maneuvering area. PHI has been designed/constructed by philosophers, psychologists, economists, and other fake scientists. SCI has been designed/constructed by folks who subscribe to the methodology of material/formal consistency as explained in the foreword of every physics textbook. Which aircraft will the fake scientists try to board? Clearly, in order to get rid of these folks, one has to make sure that they risk their lives with their own crappy constructs.
Of course, there is certain truth in economics but after 200+ years economists still have no idea what it looks like. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism/MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong.
25 comments:
He's got the 'jealousy/envy' thing going on here Tom:
""Sometimes I think psychologists use all this psychobabble because we have physics envy," he said, grinning. Everyone chuckled.
Though he clearly achieved his goal of lightening the mood, I found myself plagued by his curious turn of phrase. I wondered if psychologists might indeed be jealous of their physicist colleagues, whom nobody doubted were real scientists. "
You need 2 for envy, 3 for jealousy...
I see only 2 here, ie physicists and psychologists... so it would have to be envy...
"science" here might even be another figure of speech creeping in...
There is 'the scientific method' where 'scientific' is an adjective...
So it may not be correct to say something IS a 'science'...
something can be analyzed by 'the scientific method' but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a 'science'...
Can Psychology be approached via the scientific method?
I'd say yes it can...
Stop there....
"Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = "is gold money?!?!?!"
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Its a flow not a stock....
I see only 2 here, ie physicists and psychologists... so it would have to be envy...
Confirmation bias?
"science" here might even be another figure of speech creeping in...
I think it may be being used more an ambiguous term than a figure of speech as "word or phrase that has a meaning other than the literal meaning" usually for some effect associated with the literal meaning.
Higher levels of abstraction are often ambiguous with out defining their use in a context precisely.
Abstractions are sets of sets. Logical errors are often committed by identifying the meaning of term denoting a high level of abstraction with a limited number of the included sets.
Complicating this higher levels of abstraction can also serve as figures of speech that are used to include sets not in the commonly understood denotation.
The actual issue here is that "science" means a lot of things to a lot of people. Physicists have a must more precise view of what constitutes a science than most people outside of physics, and so they don't see other disciplines that are different from physics based on these criteria as "real science." This makes some others who regard themselves as "scientists" envious/jealous of physicists. Psychologically it's a superiority/inferiority and dominance/submission kind of thing.
The basic difference is between science being a particular type of body of knowledge with a well defined structure like a general theory and science being the application of a method.
The author is admitting than psych doesn't have a general theory based on experiment for example but rather uses scientific method for case study that can sometimes be generalized to a degree. For that reason he argues that psych is "scientific."
This is the case not only with psychology but also economics and the other social sciences. They are "scientific" to the degree that they legitimately employ scientific method in gaining knowledge. But none of them are sciences in the sense of physics, for none of them conform to the criteria of physics and won't without a fuller development of biophysics and psychophysics that folds these disciplines into physics, if that ever happens.
The reality is a left over of the sciences having spun off from philosophy. The various disciples are desirous of making that distinction clear and physics has done the best job of it owing to the nature of the subject matter. The rest of the "sciences" still overlap with philosophy to one degree or other, and this overlap is considerably more than most practicing those disciples would like to have to admit. So they emphasize the "scientific" aspect of the discipline and are in denial of the speculative dimension of it, which may be considerable.
Well they are not dealing with material systems... they get into human factors....
Like the whole 'inequality!' issue is materialist...
iow they way I view these 'inequality!' people is they would be satisfied if everybody had the same amount of munnie... to them this material measure would result in 'equality!'....
But then what about for instance the alt-right where those people dont look at material at all and instead focus on genetics and theorize that some genetic compositions are superior to others...
But then they will point to material outcomes as criteria to determine said superiority...
This also gets back to this "jealousy/envy" thing...
Pretty f-ed up.... compared to working in strict material matters...
"I see only 2 here, ie physicists and psychologists... so it would have to be envy... Confirmation bias?"
The "=2" and ">=3" criteria is scientific... brings in quantification... so no I dont think I have confirmation bias in this...
Also, in scientific method, if you ever come up with a successful theory you will see confirmation at some point of the process...
Generalizing from one example or insufficient examples is called the fallacy of hasty generalization, one of the many informal fallacies that dovetail with cognitive bias.
Well I think it makes sense...
Case1: you have 2 people (and a non human element), 2 has some element 1 doesnt and 1 isnt happy about it... that is lets term it "envy"....
Case2: then you have 3 people, 1 is looking at an interaction between 2 and 3 and doesnt like something about the interaction between 2 and 3... lets term that jealousy...
You cant have the Case2 with only 2 people...
Two different cases...
Requires two different terms...
Matt, I could just as well make the case that jealously and even are about the Ten Commandments, with jealously concerned with not coveting a neighbor's wife and envy not coveting a neighbor's goods.
Meaning is base on rules for the use of signs as symbols. In ordinary language these rules are learned in gaining fluency and mastering them is a mark of fluency in a language.
These rules are only partially explicit, e.g., in grammar and dictionary meanings but the use of the rules is shown by the intersecting contexts in which terms are used. For example, in addition to denotation affecting meaning, there is also connotation. So different terms with essentially the same denotation may differ in connotation.
Wittgenstein uses what he calls language-games to illustrate this. Games are rule-based. As he points out some games have very strict rules and some loose ones. There are even games where some terms function as wild cards. He constructs language games to illustrate how a single terms plays a role in quite different language-games.
There are no strict rules for using terms like "envy" and "jealousy" Sometimes they can be used interchangeable without affecting the meaning, but sometimes one is to be preferred over the other in terms of context, like jealously involving interpersonal relationships and envy involving stuff. But informal rules admit exceptions.
One encounters this is learning a foreign language, where two terms are close in meaning but fluent speakers would prefer one over another in a particular kind of context. It's difficult mastering this. But a fluent person can usually determine what someone who is not fluent is driving at when the come close but don't use the world as a fluent speaker would. In other words, there is enough implicit information to suffice for one who knows the implicit rules very well from long exposure.
This is also an issue in translation. The translator really needs to be fluent in both languages, and in translating historical texts, the translator also has to know how the use of terms changes historically. This is also true across dialects. Indian English uses some terms differently than American English, for example.
A social science is NOT a science but a sitcom
Comment on David B. Feldman on ‘Is Psychology Really a Science?’
The so-called social sciences have been identified by Feynman as cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”
What is missing is the true theory, with scientific truth well-defined as material and formal consistency. The problem is this, psychologists, for example, know that they do not satisfy scientific standards but they insist nonetheless on the title social sciences. It has always been quite obvious that Freud’s storytelling and adoption of Greek myth had not much to do with science but more with a modern alternative to religion/superstition and with a new format for the entertainment industry. They similarity of a therapy setting and a sitcom simply cannot be overlooked.
All problems would end immediately if the social sciences could stop calling themselves sciences. For whatever reason, they cannot. And because science relies on self-government and the voluntary adherence to scientific ethics and because there is no such thing as a science police who expels cargo cult sciences and jails fake scientists the so-called social sciences continue with what is in commonplace terms a fraud.
As far as economics defines itself as a social science, the same untenable situation prevails. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept profit wrong. It is fraudulent to present this indefensible proto-scientific rubbish as science.#2
Because economists lack the true theory their economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundation since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. In order to become a science, economics needs a paradigm shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true systemic macrofoundations. Economics is NOT a social science but a system science.
The simple reason why economics is a failed science is that both orthodox and heterodox economists share the foundational self-delusion that economics is a social science.
Until this day, economists have NOT gotten the foundational concepts of their subject matter, i.e. profit and income, right. This is like medieval physics before the foundational concept of energy was properly understood.#3
When economists are told that economics does not satisfy the scientific standards of material and formal consistency they invariably fall back on J. S. Mill’s slogan of economics as ‘inexact and separate science’. This, of course, is merely one of economists’ numerous unacceptable excuses.#4 There is NO such thing as an inexact and separate science. There is only science and non-science respectively cargo cult science. The so-called social sciences and economics fall into the latter category.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/05/what-is-so-great-about-cargo-cult.html
#2 The real problem with the economics Nobel
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/09/the-real-problem-with-economics-nobel.html
#3 See ‘Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence’
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/02/economists-three-layered-scientific.html
#4 See ‘Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses’
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/01/failed-economics-losers-long-list-of.html
They ARE 'sciences' if the people in that dept of the academe are TRYING to use the scientific method in their approach to reaching understanding...
That doesnt mean they are automatically doing a good job of it...
Most of the people in those depts are not our top people... they are the C+ students who ended up going to college... so you get out what you put in... ie GIGO...
These people are just second rate scientists... thankfully the best people end up going into more successful disciplines... success breeds success... success attracts success....
Economics and some of these other unsuccessful disciplines dont attract the best people...
That doesnt mean these disciplines cant be successful if we would put better people in there...
Tom the words are secondary to what is going on... the phenoms are what is important ... yes we can botch the words/terminology but that doesn't effect what is actually happening...
This is like all of these idiot people going all around trying to figure out what "money!" is ... the terms don't effect the science .... the science (properly) should result in the terms...
Tom the words are secondary to what is going on... the phenoms are what is important ... yes we can botch the words/terminology but that doesn't effect what is actually happening...
In many cases what with think and say is happening or account for it influences what happens next. Words matter.
For example, there is a serious problem when ordinary language terms are "defined" technically in "science." This problem arises owing to imported ambiguity that cannot be excluded simply by technical definition. One has to stick to the definition in the use of the term but that is difficult to do when using ordinary language.
Some "scientists" try to have it both ways. They define ordinary language terms technically and then use the full range of meaning in discourse, and if this is noticed and they are called on it, they revert to the technical definition to show how "scientific" they are being. This results in nonsense rather than science.
Happens all the time in economic, finance, psych, and social science, as well as philosophy. Analytic philosophy was developed in part to point this out.
This is a reason for formalization. But even math cannot eliminate the problems because the connection between the model and and the world has to be stipulated by definitions and these definitions often use ordinary language terms and also depend on stated presumptions involving a worldview that is not formalized.
Matt Franko
You say: “Economics and some of these other unsuccessful disciplines dont attract the best people...”
In order to understand the obvious lack of scientific success, it is crucial to realize that there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
Theoretical economics (= science) has been body-snatched by political economists (= agenda pushers). Indeed, it is a fact that political economics does NOT attract the best people. Political economics has achieved NOTHING of scientific value in the past 200+ years. Political economics attracts people that are stupid or corrupt or both.
Science consists of two essential elements: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant) Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.
Science is well-defined since 2000+ years. Economics is a failed science because economists are incompetent scientists. This applies to both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.#1 MMT is part of the mess.
What has been proven is that the formal foundations, i.e. the balances equations, of MMT are false.#2 Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false.
So, how MMTer in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, think and op-ed about the deficit is mostly wrong.#3 Obviously, MMT attracts the wrong folks. These underperformers and storytellers do not even get the elementary math of National Accounting right.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/04/the-stupidity-of-heterodoxy-is-life.html
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/09/rectification-of-mmt-macro-accounting.html
#3 MMT: Redistribution as wellness program
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/10/mmt-redistribution-as-wellness-program.html
I don't think they get t he National Accounting wrong ...
Many others do in Economics Depts. though....
"Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = "is gold money?!?!?!"
something can be analyzed by 'the scientific method' but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a 'science'...
I don't always agree with Matt but he is always on point.
We have to stop and examine the meaning of words thoughtfully, if we don't we just end up reinforcing an often wrong status quo. We cannot perpetuate the idea that we can only gain valid knowledge of very few hard sciences, and let's not forget there is a huge share of "pseudo-science" even on hard sciences journals due to the current state of publishing, peer reviewing, institutional pressure and partisan interests.
The problem is not psychology, or physics, the problem is the institutions of the academe themselves and their operational procedure. The scientific method has been reviled due to political and economical circumstances, whether something is a "science" or not is a moot point, what does that even mean?
Ignacio
You ask “Is psychology a science?!?!?!" = ‘is gold money?!?!?!’ something can be analyzed by ‘the scientific method’ but it may be just a figure of speech to say something IS a ‘science’.”
Psychology is NOT a science, neither is economics. Science is well-defined since 2000+ years by material and formal consistency. Neither psychology nor economics satisfies these criteria. Because of this they are cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.” (Feynman)
The problem with economics is that each year the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is awarded.#1
In order NOT to mislead the general public, the word ‘sciences’ has to be deleted from the title or replaced by ‘cargo cult sciences’.#2
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The real problem with the economics Nobel
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/09/the-real-problem-with-economics-nobel.html
#2 Economics is NOT a science of behavior
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/04/the-writing-on-wall-economics-is-not.html
The ironic thing is that the scientific method is based on skepticism and it's fundamental principle is that hypotheses can be disconfirmed definitively but cannot be confirmed definitively. Every scientific assertion hangs on new data discovery.
However, "science" and "scientific" have acquired a connotation of certainty, and as the standard of knowledge.
This is just another philosophical assumption and it is actually based on magical thinking that has nothing to do with how science actually operates.
I am with Paul Feyerabend on this. Scientism is another form of dogmatism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm
This is not to denigrate science as a field or scientific method as a powerful methodology for gaining knowledge. It's against worshipping man-made idols with feet of clay. This is just another form of "supernaturalism" in the derogatory sense. Science prides itself on being "naturalistic," but magical thinking about science is not naturalistic. Waving the wand of scientific method over something doesn't make it scientific in the sense of being certain knowledge. That's just magical thinking.
Paul Feyerabend, "How to defend society against science"
Scientific method is a tool in the tool box of knowledge instruments. It is a useful and powerful tool, but a just a tool nevertheless, and a tool along with other tools of different qualities. It is not a magic wand or philosopher's stone.
"Science" broadly speaking is the output of scientific method. It includes both the successes and the failures, the failures being discarded so they don't have to occupy time and energy anymore.
But "science" also means the scientific worldview, which is based on naturalism and in one version, reduction to materialism. This worldview can be termed "scientism." It is a philosophy based on philosophical assumptions and is not itself the product of application of scientific method. It is taking some version of scientific method as a foundational norm.
Tom Hickey
Every layperson who is confronted with the statement: Mr. A has been murdered and you are the murderer, understands immediately the concept of scientific truth. Truth is (i) binary true/false with NOTHING in between, and (ii), truth is objective, that is, provable in principle, and (iii), that it is worth every effort to find out the truth even if we cannot be absolutely sure that we will be successful. As Popper put it “Although nowadays we have given up the idea of absolutely certain knowledge, we have not by any means given up the idea of the search for truth. (Popper)
Admitting that there is no absolute certain knowledge is compatible with the assertion that the Law of the Lever represents certain knowledge. In fact, science is defined as the body of certain knowledge.
While genuine scientists have no problem with the idea of certain knowledge philosophers, who are known for having produced blather instead of knowledge throughout recorded history, desperately try to keep things in the morass between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). This insistence on inconclusiveness is a survival strategy of incompetent scientists and political agenda pushers, in other words, of failed and fake scientists. Needless to emphasize that these folks are the most enthusiastic followers of Feyerabend and tireless proponents of anything goes.
Philosophers, social scientists, and economists are the traditional clientele of political clowns like the younger Feyerabend. How can science keep these folks at bay?
Let us make a thought experiment. There are two aircraft called PHI and SCI waiting on the maneuvering area. PHI has been designed/constructed by philosophers, psychologists, economists, and other fake scientists. SCI has been designed/constructed by folks who subscribe to the methodology of material/formal consistency as explained in the foreword of every physics textbook. Which aircraft will the fake scientists try to board? Clearly, in order to get rid of these folks, one has to make sure that they risk their lives with their own crappy constructs.
Of course, there is certain truth in economics but after 200+ years economists still have no idea what it looks like. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism/MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Post a Comment