tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post4873609553247854568..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Noah Smith — Macro theory vs. string theorymike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45369464577467766132015-12-21T22:44:45.025-05:002015-12-21T22:44:45.025-05:00"If string theory happens to be complete B.S...."If string theory happens to be complete B.S., there is essentially no loss to society."<br /><br />First, it can't be "disproved" to a string theorist's satisfaction. It is infinitely flexible to survive just about anything. Even when the predictions it makes are completely wrong, the theorists claim it is a mere snag and that all will be well. Feynman thought is was all a bunch of unscientific mathematical posturing, and I think he's right. <br /><br />Second, the mania around it has ensured that all other theories are essentially not publicly funded. So it in fact there is a significant scientific loss to society. <br /><br />"If prevailing macro theory (New Keynesian models now, RBC in the 80s, etc.) is complete B.S., there might be no loss, but there might very well be a big loss."<br /><br />First, it is total BS, no "might" about it. Second, these absurd "theories" have given intellectual justification to untold misery. So the loss is indeed "big".Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.com