Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just because controlled experimentation is easier in chemistry than in economics doesn't give chemistry science status and economics not-science status.

This is true.

There are many other reasons that economics is not a hard scientific field.

Science is a rigorous methodology by which we, as individuals, strive never to be misled, even by ourselves. It is a system which produces falsifiable statements, which have not been shown to be false, under any known, verifiable, repeatable method. This gives rise to a rigorous use of language which demands thorough definition for each key term under investigation. Ultimately, science is about making clear definitions into clear statements, and not being fooled into believing a false statement.

The benefit of science is to make predictions which bear out future observations. The ultimate goal of science is to allow humans to predict the future, insofar as the future can be predicted.

Whether or not a field can produce controlled experiments can be a severe impediment to establishing a rigid language, with precise definitions. This can make the process of producing falsifiable statements cumbersome.

***
I think it's fair to say that, no matter how old the texts on the subject are, the field of Economics is in its infancy. There is no widespread agreement among economists (even nationally, let alone globally) on anything beyond the most loose and broad definitions. There is still rich debate on the most fundamental principles. I.e. economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

There's nothing wrong with being in the baby steps of understanding the beast that is the entire notion of "understanding the movement of resources, what motivates humans to do so, and the consequences of such."

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry. What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

A hard science must produce deterministic results. If the outcome is not as predicted, then either more data must be incorporated or the theory needs to be changed or both.

Economics may someday be considered a hard science, but right now, it's just not. This is in no way a disparaging remark about economists. It means they've grabbed the tail of a much more elusive dragon than that of a physicist or chemist.

[wufwugy]

What's wrong is claiming that these initial statements have undergone the same level of widespread scrutiny as chemistry.

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've never said this and I don't think anybody has. The level of certainty in economics is less than in chemistry. My comments focus on dispelling the suggestion that this means there is little certainty in economics.

That's not the reason to believe there is little certainty in economics.

This is:

Economists agree that supply and demand are things, and that a graph of a supply-demand curve is representative of reality. However, the level of uncertainty in the specific shape of the curve and how it has/will change over time is generally off the charts for any practical (predictive) application.

What's wrong is making predictions which do not bear out future observations, then using the same data and theory to explain that the conclusion was implied anyway. This is what makes it a soft science.

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

To the extent that economists can predict any changes in economics, there is merit to calling it a science.
However, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this occurs on anything but a micro-scale. I.e. A mighty clever entrepreneur may be able to see an economic niche unfilled and then fill it. However, the economists can not tell us where or when the niches occur, nor what is needed to fill them. At most they can give a broad description of niches.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option." Fine. It was an option. Then the original statement was either a lie or ill-conceived propaganda. Neither gives the field any credibility as a science.

[wufwugy]

When I say uncertainty above, I mean that different economists emphasize different elements in a system to draw conclusions about supply and demand. When they apply these conclusions to a graph, they produce many different curves. There is no conclusive argument for which curve best represents the reality.

That's definitely the case, but it's not relevant to what people argue about with regards to economics. What we don't know is at what exact values the supply and demand curves lie, but we do know that the theory explaining why the curves exist are sound. And we know their general areas. Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

They can go back, after the fact and find the graphs which actually made reasonable predictions which eventually were observed. They use this to produce new theories about how to make predictions. However, this process has not yet led to a clearly stated, falsifiable theory which makes observable predictions.

There are uncountable falsifiable predictions in economics. Don't let people tell you that it's all guesswork. What economists can't rely on is double blind experimentation (though they technically could, it's not realistic to do so). However, there have been uncountable natural experiments that all show the same thing. For example, earlier we were talking about how price controls affect supply and demand. The theory on this is under total economic consensus because of how robust the findings have been. Price controls have been tried many, many, many times all throughout the world, and every time, where those controls act mostly like independent variables, the movement along the curves, the changes in consumer and producer surpluses, and other relevant factors, behave as predicted.

The field is not weak. An example of regular experimentation is Federal Reserve statements. Some economists make predictions and assess results of market movement based "merely" on what the Fed says. These are very falsifiable things. The stock market reacts in very predictable ways to Fed announcements. The problem is that there is sooooooooooo much noise in the airwaves since the vast majority of people who claim to have economic opinions are not economists (hey me included).

If you watch the popular media, you'd think that the stock market is just one giant pile of bullshit that nobody understands, but the reality is that it's very robust and useful for economists. Some economists believe prediction markets are so robust that they should be used to operate monetary policy (thus eliminating central banks' monetary duties and the millions of hours of brainpower that go into them).

At most they can give a broad description of niches.

Is that even a problem? Economics is by nature broad descriptions. I mean, maybe you're not into that. I am. Macro is my thing.

I have yet to see any state-level predictions which bear the predicted results. I see a whole lot of IF A, THEN B, but then C happens and the economists say, "This was always an option."

Yeah, bad economists. There are certainly some who do this (guys like Krugman), but most don't.

[wufwugy]

Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble. What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics. What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble.

It is.

What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics.

You're so right, but for the perfectly wrong reason.

The "other aspects of physics" struggle to get 7 to 10 significant digits (decimal places) in agreement with theoretical values on their best days, in their best labs. QM makes predictions that are accurate to over 35 sig figs. In short the amount of certainty we have that QM is a description of reality is like a million billion billion times more than "other aspects of physics."

What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

All of which is - amazingly - defined, quantified, and predictable.

Note that you can certainly know the location of any particle to arbitrary precision. However, in so manipulating the wave function (particle), you impart a more and more uncertain amount of momentum to it. Photons are tricksy, with their well-defined momentum, but QM describes the uncertainties in photons, too.

The fact is that uncertainty is the nature of the universe. Or at least, any definitive certainty which underlies the uncertainty manifests as predictable uncertainties, which are equivalent to those described by QM.

This is not in disagreement among physicists.

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

***
There are many contested ideas at the cutting edge of physics, but QM uncertainties are not among them.

You'd be better suited to talk about string theorists than QM.

I'd be hard pressed to draw distinctions between the methods and results of string theory vs economics.

[wufwugy]

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

I certainly don't think economics is useless. If anything, I think it's ridiculously complex, and even though a lot of diligent and intelligent people have been working on it, and some of them are quite well-funded, the ability to reduce the complexity is still very limited.

I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.

Whether or not something is considered "a science" has no relation to the fact that the scientific process is a part of literally every field of study, or at least can be.

Whether or not something is a science has no relation to its utility to humans. Whether or not mathematics is a science is a funny debate, and it all hinges on the fact that theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicists do very similar work, with only slightly different motivations.

So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.

If nothing else, you've shown me that the scientific process is more a part of economics than I was aware.