Joseph Stiglitz on proposed 'Robin Hood' tax

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm not disputing that. But was physics not a science before predictions were that accurate? Perhaps not, but simply because of a question of method not inexactness.

It's just not a consistent view. What is science and what is not is defined by the method, not really the exactness of the results. That he claims that social sciences mimic the form but cann ...[text shortened]... m quoting from memory here) is clear evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's interesting that a noted physicist like Feynman was capable of making pronouncements that show he had no clue of what he was talking about when it came to defining science.

On the plus side, he had a wicked way with the bongos.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's interesting that a noted physicist like Feynman was capable of making pronouncements that show he had no clue of what he was talking about when it came to defining science.

On the plus side, he had a wicked way with the bongos.

Physicists (especially quantum physicists) tend to get carried away because there's this limit notion that everything can ultimately be explained by physics. Which is probably true, but the reality is that for a long, long time it will simply not be effective to study complex macroscopic systems by breaking it down into quantum particles.

By the way, a usually great read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience

Originally posted by Palynka
Physicists (especially quantum physicists) tend to get carried away because there's this limit notion that everything can ultimately be explained by physics. Which is probably true, but the reality is that for a long, long time it will simply not be effective to study complex macroscopic systems by breaking it down into quantum particles.

It's probably true that everything can be represented in mathematical form (which is what physics boils down to) but that does not that mathematics can explain everything. Perhaps that is precisely the point where economics, as a 'soft science', intervenes.

Attempts to undermine the validity of economics in that way smack of vulgar scientism; surely the point is whether economics serves to increase our understanding of whatever it is that economics describes?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's probably true that everything can be represented in mathematical form (which is what physics boils down to) but that does not that mathematics can explain everything. Perhaps that is precisely the point where economics, as a 'soft science', intervenes.

Attempts to undermine the validity of economics in that way smack of vulgar scientism ...[text shortened]... er economics serves to increase our understanding of whatever it is that economics describes?

Mathematics is a language. It helps us be precise and consistent but doesn't explain anything by itself...

surely the point is whether economics serves to increase our understanding of whatever it is that economics describes?
Exactly. Which doesn't stop the fact that there is a lot of pseudo-economics, but to call the whole field a pseudo-science is weird.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm not disputing that. But was physics not a science before predictions were that accurate? Perhaps not, but simply because of a question of method not inexactness.

It's just not a consistent view. What is science and what is not is defined by the method, not really the exactness of the results. That he claims that social sciences mimic the form but cann ...[text shortened]... m quoting from memory here) is clear evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, I don't fully agree with Feynman that psychology etc. are not "real science" - but to a physicist it's odd that results which would be immediately discarded because of a lack of accuracy or a lack of motivation for assumptions in physics are blindly accepted in different fields.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's probably true that everything can be represented in mathematical form (which is what physics boils down to) but that does not that mathematics can explain everything. Perhaps that is precisely the point where economics, as a 'soft science', intervenes.

Attempts to undermine the validity of economics in that way smack of vulgar scientism ...[text shortened]... er economics serves to increase our understanding of whatever it is that economics describes?

You can say everything you can say in mathematical language in just words too. It's just a lot more cumbersome to do so.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You can say everything you can say in mathematical language in just words too. It's just a lot more cumbersome to do so.

You can't explain everything with words, either.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I don't fully agree with Feynman that psychology etc. are not "real science" - but to a physicist it's odd that results which would be immediately discarded because of a lack of accuracy or a lack of motivation for assumptions in physics are blindly accepted in different fields.

Blindly accepted? Come on.

Originally posted by Palynka
Blindly accepted? Come on.

Only by raving Friedmannequins.

Is there an Objectivist economics?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only by raving Friedmannequins.

Is there an Objectivist economics?

The closest was probably the Austrian school, perhaps, but they have been largely marginalized because they rarely use mathematics or empirical data (much like Marxists). They few who resist rant about the orthodoxy, mainly because they don't get published in the main peer-reviewed journals.

The thing is that mathematics forces people to commit to a clearly defined model. And those in the unorthodoxy that require argumentative leeway tend prefer vague and untested (sometimes untestable) statements. I see them as doing philosophy of economics but not the social science of economics. Sometimes they have interesting ideas that end up being incorporated in proper models and tested against data, but the bulk of it is too ideological.

The problem is that economics has a strong political role, so you end up with acolytes of certain classical schools of thought. Most of those people only learn up to undergrad level and are more easily seduced by arguments than fact. And people like simple, and universally good-bad dichotomies, which such schools of thought provide. I think that currently there is an effort to re-envision undergrad teaching in economics because it's desperately needed.

Originally posted by Palynka
Not really. He's ignorant about what science is. He's still stuck on the idea of verifiability, when it is falsifiability what science is based on.

Feynman is ignorant on waht science is?! Feynam?! Ignorant?! On what science is?! Surely you're joking, mister Palynka! Surely

And please don't go all Karl Popper cause that old geezer certainly didn't have a clue of what science is about. Not a clue!

Dude was all prescriptive and if you are being prescriptive when talking about science you're already talking $hit in my book. If you want to talk about science, you have to be descriptive in discourse and the only prescription you can give is what Feyerabend said: "Everything goes!" That's it! Everything goes! So you can trash your Popper and his scientific method right away.

The nerve of you!!! Saying that Feynman is ignorant about science!!!

[disclaimer] Notice the mock-tone in what regards to Feynman but everything else is dead serious. [/disclaimer]

Edit: I don't consider Economics and Social "Sciences" as a science either. But that doesn't mean $hit. Cause nothing needs to be a science in order to be interesting, hard, useful, elegant and whatever.

Besides I think you are hastily judging Feynman: taking the words he uses (for example he uses the word pseudo a lot) I think his real point is what he called in other times cargo cult science, voodoo science, etc...

He openly says "they haven't got anywhere YET, maybe someday they will...", he criticizes the fact that we get "experts on everything" and he did the same in Physics, when he says "maybe true, may not be true, but hasn't been demonstrated one way or the other" it seems fairly obvious that he is alluding to the concept of falsifiability that is so dear to you 😛

Sp please bow down and apologize to the spirit of Feynman and read: " Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" in order for you to understand this great man's thought.

😵 😠

Originally posted by Palynka
Physicists (especially quantum physicists) tend to get carried away because there's this limit notion that everything can ultimately be explained by physics.

I don't know of many physicists (quantum or otherwise) that have that notion.

I don know some people that think like that (most of them aren't physicists) and the physicists that do think like that don't know much about physics (I'm being kinda mean but it's true).

So what I'm trying to say is: quote(s) please!

In fact I know a lot of physicists (quantum and otherwise) that say precisely the opposite! Physics can't and will never explain everything!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's probably true that everything can be represented in mathematical form (which is what physics boils down to)

Do you think that it will ever be a mathematical representation of love?

Originally posted by adam warlock
I don't know of many physicists (quantum or otherwise) that have that notion.

I don know some people that think like that (most of them aren't physicists) and the physicists that do think like that don't know much about physics (I'm being kinda mean but it's true).

So what I'm trying to say is: quote(s) please!

In fact I know a lot of physicist ...[text shortened]... erwise) that say precisely the opposite! Physics can't and will never explain everything!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

Which notion? Because I do think that way (I'm no physicist, so one point for you!), my only critique is when that is taken to imply a hierarchy of sorts in different sciences. Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?

Edit - Ok, I see your point. I was imprecise when I say "explain everything", but what I meant is that ultimately "everything" boils down to physics at the quantum level. Could gravity be an example that proves me wrong?