tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post1846403417094014513..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Mark Thoma — If the Modifications Needed to Accommodate New Observations Become Too Baroque ...mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80638278399176817402016-06-19T23:07:41.349-04:002016-06-19T23:07:41.349-04:00By way of history, the Copernican idea may have be...By way of history, the Copernican idea may have been more elegant, but it predictions were much worse than the Ptolemaic ones. It required Brahe's later data and Kepler's elliptic orbits to make the observations fit. <br /><br />For a different and very interesting take on Galileo and the Church, see Paul Feyerabend. His conclusion is that Galileo was knowingly dishonest in the way he presented the heliocentric evidence. The geocentric model (based on Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories) was much stronger than the heliocentric model. The Church repeatedly exposed Galileo's deceptions and misdirections. The Church was left with little choice but to punish Galileo. Nevertheless, the Church went easy on him. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-81049688572518270802016-06-19T22:46:16.631-04:002016-06-19T22:46:16.631-04:00"The models are equal as models but not as ca..."The models are equal as models but not as causal models of reality, as Newton's theory of gravitation proves beyond doubt. Scientific explanation is assumed to provide causal accounts, not just models that fit. Many models can fit a set of conditions. The challenge for science is distinguishing which are correct and this is accomplished by causal accounts."<br /><br />I referred to this weird turn of events in another thread. Even this doesn't really grapple with what's happened to theoretical physics. The aim is to account for readings on an experimental apparatus. Seeking to explain the real world is a fool's errand. Thus Hawking's claim about Ptolemy's astronomy. <br /><br />With its pretentious physics envy, economics has seemingly imbibed the same philosophy but only in order to insert ideology under the guise of prediction. This was made famous by Milton Friedman and his ludicrous instrumentalism: all that matters is the ability to make predictions, a sly way to divert attention from the ideological foundations he and likeminded propagandists were successfully embedding into this value-free "science". How unsurprising then that the predictions are as bad as the ideological foundations. Garbage in, garbage out.<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44339271218838197392016-06-19T16:32:09.010-04:002016-06-19T16:32:09.010-04:00Right. It is a matter of massaging your data long ...Right. It is a matter of massaging your data long enough and not making it public.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-39173214928727360022016-06-19T16:26:31.627-04:002016-06-19T16:26:31.627-04:00The Ptolemaic model is not just more inelegant and...<i>The Ptolemaic model is not just more inelegant and cumbersome, it is actually wrong about reality in that there is nothing causing the sun to orbit the earth and there is a well-explained cause of the planets orbiting the sun and the moon orbiting the earth.</i><br /><br />Economists have learned from Ptolemy's mistake. The solution is too keep the model elegant and force reality to fit the model. It's still cumbersome, but in a way that economists can live with.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.com