Behold the Market, Thy New God

[The Minx]

No, that's the definition of science.

Um, no that wasn't my point. I was talking about your analysis, not your definition of science.

Which is a necessary, but not sufficient grounds to be considered a science. I have plenty of respect for the economists who do form falsifiable hypothesis and experimentation, but that's only part of the field and no amount of chanting "they're fringe schools" will change the fact that the fact that the Austrian School et. al. are far too influential to be categorized as "fringe".

The Austrian school is only influential in certain political circles and think tanks. The same is true of many other kinds of woo woo. Besides, just where do you draw the line? How large a woo woo fringe spoils the field, and how little is necessary for you to accept the field as scientific? I would have thought that as long as you have a hard core of researchers who are using rigorous empiricism and hypothesis testing to advance the body of knowledge in the field, then that would make the work they do scientific. The field would then become admissible as science, no matter how many people are not using such methods. For instance if by some hypothetical miracle all but 10% of chemists were to resume studies of alchemy and still claim to be "chemists" then chemistry would not stop being a science, because science would still be happening among those who are using scientific methods.

They don't use empiricism or hypothesis testing at all.

They did, that's my point. The whole system is based on experimentation. Of course, just like a lot of economic schools it accepts certain premises as true and ignores data that refutes them. "The Market is thy guide" and "The New Deal was a disaster" are unquestioned dogmas of the disciples of Milton Freeman. "Taoist alchemy is correct" is one of those of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Well, if Traditional Chinese Medicine practicioners do that, then they're not using hypothesis testing, are they.

BTW, you're mischaracterizing Friedman: your description of his position would be better applied to the Austrian school.

[General Havoc]

Empiricism and the scientific method is neither required nor universally practiced in economics. It's not a science. Period.

Empiricism and the scientific method is neither required nor universally practiced in biology either, to use your standards for such things. I simply fail to see how the fact that some economists are charlatans invalidates economics while the same standard does not do so for physics, biology, chemistry, and other hard sciences for which we can and have demonstrated various levels of charlatanry going on.

They did, that's my point. The whole system is based on experimentation. Of course, just like a lot of economic schools it accepts certain premises as true and ignores data that refutes them. "The Market is thy guide" and "The New Deal was a disaster" are unquestioned dogmas of the disciples of Milton Freeman. "Taoist alchemy is correct" is one of those of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Milton Friedman's work was considerably more complex than a sheepish bleat of "the market is thy guide". The fact that you disagree with his conclusions has zero to do with their scientific rigor. Nor even if they were simply such things would that invalidate the study of economics as a discipline.

You do not get to selectively declare non-scientific those fields of study which result in conclusions you dislike.

[Cynical Cat]

I never said the whole field of economics crackpots, I said the field contains too many crackpots for the discipline as a whole to be considered a science. Nice strawman you're destroying.

I paraphrased Freeman, but he really did say those things, so yes they are representative of the high priest of the Chicago School. They aren't the sum total of the Chicago School, but they're there.

No one has that economics as a whole has less rigeur than the sciences. The best you've managed is an utterly false comparison to biology, which lacks anything like the legions of unscientific practitioners that economics has.

As for Traditional Chinese Medicine, that's my point. They aren't scientific and neither are many economists.

[General Havoc]

I never said the whole field of economics crackpots, I said the field contains too many crackpots for the discipline as a whole to be considered a science. Nice strawman you're destroying.

You are stating that the field of economics is not a scientific one because it transcends a wholly arbitrary threshold of people you don't like the methodology of. This is self-evident nonsense. The scientific basis of economics has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion of the people who practice it. Just as the validity of your argument is not magically improved by gesticulating wildly at the word "strawman", particularly when you then turn around and invent strawmen of your own to lampoon.

The best you've managed is an utterly false comparison to biology, which lacks anything like the legions of unscientific practitioners that economics has.

You have succeeded admirably in entirely missing the point. If every living biologist save one suffered a massive mental breakdown tomorrow and began to perform experiments and come to conclusions that were derived from nothing but Ouiji boards and charlatanry, biology would remain a science.

You have admitted that there exist economic schools and economists who abide by the proper methods of scientific rigor. If that is true, then economics must be a science. It is not possible for it to not be a science.

I paraphrased Freeman, but he really did say those things, so yes they are representative of the high priest of the Chicago School.

So now it's not only not a science, but a religion instead? If we wait another page or so, will it become something else? You don't get to call the man a high priest, and then turn around and accuse me of making strawmen.

As for Traditional Chinese Medicine, that's my point. They aren't scientific and neither are many economists.

And yet you have no objection to categorizing medicine or biology as sciences, despite the existence of these wholly unscientific traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. The proportions are not the point. If you can practice economics as a science, how exactly is it not a science?

[Cynical Cat]

You have admitted that there exist economic schools and economists who abide by the proper methods of scientific rigor. If that is true, then economics must be a science. It is not possible for it to not be a science.

That is correct. It's a social science and respectable one when properly practiced. I have absolutely not denied that. I don't respect the discipline as a whole, the collective body of people who make it their practice, which has a large number of people who don't practice with that kind of rigor. To go back to the old analogy, I don't respect a discipline that combines faith healers, Chinese Traditional Medicine, and modern Western Medicine. I respect Western Medicine. I value the wheat, not the pile of wheat and chaff.

[The Minx]

I don't remember Friedman ever reducing his model to two statements like that. But if he did make anything like those two statements, they would not have been made in a vacuum. He might have presented them as a summary of the school's conclusions, possibly in an interview or some such.

That is correct. It's a social science and respectable one when properly practiced. I have absolutely not denied that. I don't respect the discipline as a whole, the collective body of people who make it their practice, which has a large number of people who don't practice with that kind of rigor. To go back to the old analogy, I don't respect a discipline that combines faith healers, Chinese Traditional Medicine, and modern Western Medicine. I respect Western Medicine. I value the wheat, not the pile of wheat and chaff.

The various branches of economics have their terminology and general concepts in common. For instance, they all agree on the existence of such things as the laws of supply and demand, aggregate supply and demand, comparative advantage, etc. Moreover, they agree on how economic variables should be calculated and they broadly agree on how they interact. Chinese Medicine has concepts which have NO basis in modern medicine (such as Chi) and don't recognize even basic ideas of modern medicine at all (such as the existence of cells and germs, and the basics of the immune system). So the analogy doesn't work.

[Cynical Cat]

The various branches of economics have their terminology and general concepts in common. For instance, they all agree on the existence of such things as the laws of supply and demand, aggregate supply and demand, comparative advantage, etc. Moreover, they agree on how economic variables should be calculated and they broadly agree on how they interact. Chinese Medicine has concepts which have NO basis in modern medicine (such as Chi) and don't recognize even basic ideas of modern medicine at all (such as the existence of cells and germs, and the basics of the immune system). So the analogy doesn't work.

That's incorrect. In China, at least, it shares a lexicon with modern western medicine and acknowledges cells, germs, and the immune system. Sure 15th Century TCM doesn't, we aren't talking about the 15th Century. This is, of course, do to the influence and effectiveness of western medicine, but schools of economic thought don't exist in a vacuum either.

I don't remember Friedman ever reducing his model to two statements like that. But if he did make anything like those two statements, they would not have been made in a vacuum. He might have presented them as a summary of the school's conclusions, possibly in an interview or some such.

The statements are indicative of the unquestioned presuppositions of his theory, that the market should be allowed to operate with as little government interference as possible and that the New Deal was a negative despite boosting the economy at the time and creating infrastructure which continues to give benefits up to today. Pithy comments don't have to summaries, but if they are representative of the philosophy, and they are in this case, they can be fairly used as examples of their thought as distortions are not taking place. That its rationalized using a lexicon shared by economists doesn't make it any more respectable than any other reality denying philosophy. Marxist theory uses the same vocabulary as other economists, but they're strict Marxism is discredited for much the same reason (as opposed to say Marxist analysis, which simply means historical and cultural analysis placing special emphasis economic conditions as being of prime importance in shaping events).

[The Minx]

That's incorrect. In China, at least, it shares a lexicon with modern western medicine and acknowledges cells, germs, and the immune system. Sure 15th Century TCM doesn't, we aren't talking about the 15th Century. This is, of course, do to the influence and effectiveness of western medicine, but schools of economic thought don't exist in a vacuum either.

If they share the lexicon with modern medicine, then they're copying a lexicon which is not properly theirs. Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything about Chi or pressure points in modern medicine which Chinese medicine still uses.

The statements are indicative of the unquestioned presuppositions of his theory, that the market should be allowed to operate with as little government interference as possible and that the New Deal was a negative despite boosting the economy at the time and creating infrastructure which continues to give benefits up to today. Pithy comments don't have to summaries, but if they are representative of the philosophy, and they are in this case, they can be fairly used as examples of their thought as distortions are not taking place. That its rationalized using a lexicon shared by economists doesn't make it any more respectable than any other reality denying philosophy. Marxist theory uses the same vocabulary as other economists, but they're strict Marxism is discredited for much the same reason (as opposed to say Marxist analysis, which simply means historical and cultural analysis placing special emphasis economic conditions as being of prime importance in shaping events).

I haven't yet seen the context in which the phrases you refer to were spoken, so I can't really comment on them directly. But pretty much any summary of a philosophy or science that is made for the benefit of an interview, for instance, can be disparaged as "pithy phrases". That doesn't mean that there is no underlying thought or empiricism to it.

[Cynical Cat]

If they share the lexicon with modern medicine, then they're copying a lexicon which is not properly theirs. Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything about Chi or pressure points in modern medicine which Chinese medicine still uses.

So you have to originate a lexicon before you can use it? That a practice should be evaluated on its origins, not its modern practice? I'm not denying that TCM isn't bs, but some parts of it are functional and it has adopted modern medical terminology and many of its practices. That's what makes it such a good example of an unscientific practice that has many of the features of scientific practice.

But pretty much any summary of a philosophy or science that is made for the benefit of an interview, for instance, can be disparaged as "pithy phrases". That doesn't mean that there is no underlying thought or empiricism to it.

Which was why I used them. The reveal the underlying biases quite nicely. The a priori assumptions are quite apparent.

[The Minx]

So you have to originate a lexicon before you can use it? That a practice should be evaluated on its origins, not its modern practice? I'm not denying that TCM isn't bs, but some parts of it are functional and it has adopted modern medical terminology and many of its practices. That's what makes it such a good example of an unscientific practice that has many of the features of scientific practice.

That's not quite the same thing. TCM did not contribute the modern ideas or terminology, nor did it use them in creating its own ideas or treatments. It simply tacked them on after the fact in order to gain a veneer of respectability. By contrast, less rigorous schools of economics developed their ideas using the established common lexicon of economics from the beginning, developing concurrently with one another.

But pretty much any summary of a philosophy or science that is made for the benefit of an interview, for instance, can be disparaged as "pithy phrases". That doesn't mean that there is no underlying thought or empiricism to it.

Which was why I used them. The reveal the underlying biases quite nicely. The a priori assumptions are quite apparent.

My point was that if any science or philosophy can be expressed as a pithy phrase, then expressing any given science or philosophy as a pithy phrase does not in and of itself imply that it is meaningless. For example, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution often fall victim to exactly this kind of fallacy.

[Cynical Cat]

That's not quite the same thing. TCM did not contribute the modern ideas or terminology, nor did it use them in creating its own ideas or treatments.

This is somewhat true. Some of TCM's treatments are valid, just inferior to modern western medicine. It's quite effective compared to say 15th Century European medicine, which managed to perform effective cataract surgery. It's lack of a Latin based vocabulary doesn't render it second class. It's lack of effectiveness does.

It simply tacked them on after the fact in order to gain a veneer of respectability.

No. It's incorporating western medicine into the body of TCM. There's a whole fuzzy area where western medicine and TCM overlap.

By contrast, less rigorous schools of economics developed their ideas using the established common lexicon of economics from the beginning, developing concurrently with one another.

A common lexicon makes communication easier but says nothing about the validity of different schools. Ancient Greek and Roman medicine, particularly surgical techniques, are the progenitors of a substantial amount of modern medicine. TCM is similarly impressively surgically. A shared history of a science and a pseudo science does not confer legitimacy onto the pseudo science. We reject alchemy and preserve mathematics despite Isaac Newton devoting over ten years of his life to alchemy.

My point was that if any science or philosophy can be expressed as a pithy phrase, then expressing any given science or philosophy as a pithy phrase does not in and of itself imply that it is meaningless. For example, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution often fall victim to exactly this kind of fallacy.

My point as well. The phrases reveal deep set a priori assumptions that are at best, questionable, and should not be treated as a priori assumptions but as cases that need to be proven.

[The Minx]

That's not quite the same thing. TCM did not contribute the modern ideas or terminology, nor did it use them in creating its own ideas or treatments.

This is somewhat true. Some of TCM's treatments are valid, just inferior to modern western medicine. It's quite effective compared to say 15th Century European medicine, which managed to perform effective cataract surgery. It's lack of a Latin based vocabulary doesn't render it second class. It's lack of effectiveness does.

That was not the point I was making. I specified "ideas or terminology", not just "terminology".

It simply tacked them on after the fact in order to gain a veneer of respectability.

No. It's incorporating western medicine into the body of TCM. There's a whole fuzzy area where western medicine and TCM overlap.

If it incorporates Western medicine into its own teachings then it is not the TCM which is providing the understanding of the physical processes involved which make the treatment effective.

By contrast, less rigorous schools of economics developed their ideas using the established common lexicon of economics from the beginning, developing concurrently with one another.

A common lexicon makes communication easier but says nothing about the validity of different schools. Ancient Greek and Roman medicine, particularly surgical techniques, are the progenitors of a substantial amount of modern medicine. TCM is similarly impressively surgically. A shared history of a science and a pseudo science does not confer legitimacy onto the pseudo science. We reject alchemy and preserve mathematics despite Isaac Newton devoting over ten years of his life to alchemy.

That is because the processes described by alchemy have NO basis in modern chemistry. Whereas even fringe schools of economics use ideas and describe processes that various schools of economics have in common.

My point was that if any science or philosophy can be expressed as a pithy phrase, then expressing any given science or philosophy as a pithy phrase does not in and of itself imply that it is meaningless. For example, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution often fall victim to exactly this kind of fallacy.

My point as well. The phrases reveal deep set a priori assumptions that are at best, questionable, and should not be treated as a priori assumptions but as cases that need to be proven.

No they don't reveal that. You can't claim that this is your point while ignoring the fact that evolution and big bang cosmology can be reduced to simple pithy phrases and falsely dismissed as being dogmatic simply for that reason. Besides, your summary of Friedman's position was a strawman.

[Cynical Cat]

That's not quite the same thing. TCM did not contribute the modern ideas or terminology, nor did it use them in creating its own ideas or treatments.

This is somewhat true. Some of TCM's treatments are valid, just inferior to modern western medicine. It's quite effective compared to say 15th Century European medicine, which managed to perform effective cataract surgery. It's lack of a Latin based vocabulary doesn't render it second class. It's lack of effectiveness does.

That was not the point I was making. I specified "ideas or terminology", not just "terminology

And that ignores the rest of my response. That the key discovery originates in another branch or discipline does not invalidate the discipline.

If it incorporates Western medicine into its own teachings then it is not the TCM which is providing the understanding of the physical processes involved which make the treatment effective.

It's no different from one branch of economics incorporating the work of another.

That is because the processes described by alchemy have NO basis in modern chemistry. Whereas even fringe schools of economics use ideas and describe processes that various schools of economics have in common

As I've pointed out and you haven't addressed, the issue isn't where they branch off or originate, but of methodology. Or critically, the lack of scientific methodology. Astrology and astronomy share a history and vocabulary, but only one of them is a science.

No they don't reveal that. You can't claim that this is your point while ignoring the fact that evolution and big bang cosmology can be reduced to simple pithy phrases and falsely dismissed as being dogmatic simply for that reason. Besides, your summary of Friedman's position was a strawman.

I never stated it was a summary, so I can hardly be strawmaning him by saying these are summaries. You've completely ignored my point on the a priori assumptions, which is what the statements were there to illustrate and which you have never refuted. Try again.

[The Minx]

That was not the point I was making. I specified "ideas or terminology", not just "terminology

And that ignores the rest of my response. That the key discovery originates in another branch or discipline does not invalidate the discipline.

Yes it does, if it is claiming legitimacy of its traditional core tenets due to a discovery to which it has no claim and is incompatible theoretically with said traditional core tenets. Any woo woo discipline can import scientific facts into its body of knowledge and lay claim to it.

If it incorporates Western medicine into its own teachings then it is not the TCM which is providing the understanding of the physical processes involved which make the treatment effective.

It's no different from one branch of economics incorporating the work of another.

Yes it is, since the branches of economics developed their ideas concurrently with one another and draw from the same tradition, whereas TCM adopted the elements of a wholly alien system into itself.

That is because the processes described by alchemy have NO basis in modern chemistry. Whereas even fringe schools of economics use ideas and describe processes that various schools of economics have in common

As I've pointed out and you haven't addressed, the issue isn't where they branch off or originate, but of methodology. Or critically, the lack of scientific methodology. Astrology and astronomy share a history and vocabulary, but only one of them is a science.

Astronomy is an observational science, and does not conduct experiments. The methodology of most brances of economics are observational also.

No they don't reveal that. You can't claim that this is your point while ignoring the fact that evolution and big bang cosmology can be reduced to simple pithy phrases and falsely dismissed as being dogmatic simply for that reason. Besides, your summary of Friedman's position was a strawman.

I never stated it was a summary, so I can hardly be strawmaning him by saying these are summaries. You've completely ignored my point on the a priori assumptions, which is what the statements were there to illustrate and which you have never refuted. Try again.

It is a strawman because they are not a priori assumptions. I thought that was pretty clear.

Anyway, I've already used the term "summary" about the phrases before now and you didn't object then, see:

But pretty much any summary of a philosophy or science that is made for the benefit of an interview, for instance, can be disparaged as "pithy phrases". That doesn't mean that there is no underlying thought or empiricism to it.

Which was why I used them. The reveal the underlying biases quite nicely. The a priori assumptions are quite apparent.

[Hadrianvs]

Chinese Medicine and Economics are on different "tiers" on the organizational schema of things. As such comparing to the two is of little value. It's a bit like comparing the relative adaptabilities of a particular species vs an entire taxonomic family. The correct comparison is Medicine vs Economics. Since Medicine is not invalidated as a science by the existence of acupuncture or homeopathy, I fail to see why Economics would be invalidated as a science by the existence of the Chicago and Austrian schools. While it can be argued that the field of Economics is infested by pseudo-scientists such that most of its output is either of little value or actively harmful, that has no bearing on the validity on the scientificness of the field.

[Cynical Cat]

Since Medicine is not invalidated as a science by the existence of acupuncture or homeopathy, I fail to see why Economics would be invalidated as a science by the existence of the Chicago and Austrian schools. While it can be argued that the field of Economics is infested by pseudo-scientists such that most of its output is either of little value or actively harmful, that has no bearing on the validity on the scientificness of the field.

This my position. I have repeatedly stated that I have great respect for properly practiced economics and that it is the field as a whole that happens to include the Austrian School et. al. that I disdain. To use your analogy, what should be my opinion of medical practice that includes Traditional Chinese Medicine and homeopathy as well as western medicine? It's contempt. Western Medicine, on the other hand, receives my respect even it has batshit insane practices like working young doctors like slaves.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Thread Necro!

I do this only because I would have created a new thread, but this topic was already here... and I made this one too.

Both sides here are and have been approaching this question from the wrong angle. It is not the lack of insistence on proper scientific methodology in some sub-disciplines that makes economics a pseudoscience.

What makes economics a pseudoscience is Rational Choice Theory.

The basis of most modern schools of economics other than behavioral economics (which is really just a branch of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology applied to economic decision making) is rational choice theory, which states that on the whole people are rational and will behave in ways that maximize their preferences.

Can you see a problem with this? I can. It is a tautology. No matter how stupidly a person behaves, all of their decisions will be defined as rational. As a result, Rational Choice Theory cannot in principle be falsified.

People make economic decisions all the time that are obviously detrimental to them. Paying more for a product with a shiny box, vs the product with a non-shiny box that is otherwise identical. If however you give people a choice between paying for two identical items, but one costs a dollar more, they choose the less expensive item. Thus the prior choice is clearly irrational.

Most economists would conclude then that the consumers value the shiny box that they will immediately throw away at a rate equivalent to that marginal dollar, or value the "trust" in a particular brand. Any number of explanations may be offered.

They rationalize the irrational behavior as rational because their definition of value is a tautology. They never consider the possibility that there may be a predictable bias in the decision making process of people that leads to the outcome in question.

The other issue:

In no other science, barring a period of a major shift in paradigm, are there distinct schools of thought within the discipline, because in real sciences they can generate testable predictions which will rule out the other schools of thought. Economics cannot do this, save for behavioral economics which does generate these predictions, the other schools of thought just ignore them.

[The Minx]

The problem with the first point is that economics doesn't claim to teach how people ought to act, only how systems composed of people act in different situations. As far as I understand this principle, it doesn't really matter to economic models what a person's choice is, but only that their desires are actualized. In other words, "harm" is considered subjective in economics, or at least outside its area of study (as opposed to sociology or public health for example). Economics is a tool, not a moral guide. I'll agree that people often speak as if that were not the case, however. Maybe if economists would stick as much as possible to the mechanics of economics and not idealism then economics would be more respected.

Your second point is stronger, but I suspect that other sciences would also see the emergence of "schools" if there were such huge vested interests in promoting some model or other in spite of evidence to the contrary (I mentioned climatology earlier ).

[Dark Silver]

Thread Locked due to unlawful Necromancy.

This thread was over 3 months old, was not on the front page. It should NOT have been dug back up. You know the rules better than this CT.