tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8432778473771834004..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Wagers! Demand Wagers!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41357922580803153232018-10-30T02:38:10.750-07:002018-10-30T02:38:10.750-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.siskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07076079736141144027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51107864173045543992018-10-26T08:26:56.988-07:002018-10-26T08:26:56.988-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.siskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07076079736141144027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21028016415018008982015-05-12T19:57:21.067-07:002015-05-12T19:57:21.067-07:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87680726974542246362015-05-12T16:15:18.317-07:002015-05-12T16:15:18.317-07:00When teaching students biology, the hardest thing ...When teaching students biology, the hardest thing to get over is the idea that when they do a lab experiment, that they should think what hypothesis they are testing, even when the experiment is largely open to them to devise.<br /><br />Hallelujah!!<br />When working in engineering development I really struggled to get people to do that.<br /><br />Alfred<br />"‘objectivity’ of the data"<br />From my viewpoint the data used by people like Krugman and Piketty is pretty damn objective<br />You can argue that there are grey areas in things like employment numbers but as long as the same criteria are used for the different data sets is it any different than my numbers on "engines passing test"<br /><br />Quality data is notorious for huge amounts of "fudge" and error<br />But by using a smidgin of common sense and large amounts of information we were able to drive costs way down<br />Economics is IMHO the same - maybe it should be called an engineering discipline and not a science <br />(In both cases the engineer/economist must somehow get his pointy haired boss or political master to actually permit him/her to apply the fix) <br />Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55687662010552204122015-05-12T13:13:16.637-07:002015-05-12T13:13:16.637-07:00@Alfred - I agree with you that the actual practic...@Alfred - I agree with you that the actual practice of science does not match the Popperian ideal. Most papers provide a provisional hypothesis, then confirm that it isn't falsified. Rarely does a hypothesis then falsify another. <br /><br />When teaching students biology, the hardest thing to get over is the idea that when they do a lab experiment, that they should think what hypothesis they are testing, even when the experiment is largely open to them to devise. I suspect that this carries over into professional work too, given what I have seen in commercial settings.<br /><br />If we think of hypotheses as being in a landscape, science does seem to search for the best ones over time, leaving the false ones unoccupied by current thinking. Phlogiston would therefore be a hypothesis that would now be in a "truth valley" abandoned by occupation of "truth peaks". In some cases, e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity, the "truth peaks" are separate, but both occupied as being correct (or at least useful) in the appropriate context.<br /><br />I'm not quite as worried as you are about econ. In general I agree it is not a science. But I see this as more a process issue than one of too many variables. After all, biology is a science, but controlling all variables for a organism, e.g. a caged rat, is impossible. All you can hope is that the key variable you are testing, e.g. a drug, has a much greater effect than the others.<br />You can create economic experiments to test some ideas, but I agree that natural experiments are rare and few and far between, so reproduceability is difficult.<br /><br />Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43641583419989952632015-05-12T12:04:29.858-07:002015-05-12T12:04:29.858-07:00@Alex: My experience doing science taught me that ...@Alex: My experience doing science taught me that science is not iterative. It looks a bit like it is, but the illusion fades if you look too closely at it. It is more accurate to describe it as evolving with the ‘generations’ looking like iterations. There is no clear goal and rarely a fitness function more sophisticated than the social reward we heap upon each other when we do it right and the blood-letting when we do it wrong. Fitness is measured by social reputation and our customs for reward only partially align with accurate predictions.<br /><br />Ultimately I hold to two requirements for a subject area to be a science. One involves the customs for making objective information out of subjective data. The second involves the customs around the rigidity of falsification tests. Experiments that test a concept and offer support aren’t enough. What matters are the tests that destroy conceptual neighborhoods. The precession of Mercury’s apsidal line can be explained by General Relativity, but if starlight had failed to bend as it passed by the sun, GR would have been destroyed. Some other narrative would have replaced it. That doesn’t make GR correct. It means it survived a falsification attempt that would have killed it. Show me that kind of potential for economics theories and I’ll consider the field a science. Show me it is a science and I’ll use this to hammer climate skeptics even harder for their blindness and stupidity.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57582253967354029202015-05-12T11:49:15.590-07:002015-05-12T11:49:15.590-07:00@Duncan: Popper’s hard line is mostly about the ‘o...@Duncan: Popper’s hard line is mostly about the ‘objectivity’ of the data. We start with instruments that measure what we expect to be there (very subjective), but we hold to a set of customs that when followed by all of us produce derivative data that is mostly independent of the minds doing the processing. The end result is considered to be objective because of this independence. There are all sorts of ways to break these customs (cherry picking, lack of attention to good statistical hygiene, fuzzy categorizations, etc) that leave more than the fingerprints of the minds involved embedded in the data. Each science tends to have its own customs to address their peculiar needs and students spend time learning both as they learn the field.<br /><br />I’m not trying to revisit the nonsense behind what is a hard or soft science. I’m pointing out that economics isn’t a science at all because there is no set of customs for reducing data that can remove the observer minds enough for the data to be judged as objective. There are some parts of the field that do better than others (e.g. econometrics), but economics is fundamentally about human actions and that means human judgments. It is inherently subjective, thus we cannot falsify the hypotheses we craft without getting caught up in a recursive loop that invalidates the effort. We might know when a theory is nonsense, but we have to use the traditional tools of argument and refutation used by philosophers to do it. The refinements available to science are only valid when we can avoid subjectivity.<br /><br />And those variables we can’t control? They arise because of the subjectivity of the material. They are inside our fractal minds. Argument and refutation are powerful enough to address this space as we’ve learned over the generations. We don’t need to misapply the tools of science to make progress.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11938071155403955252015-05-12T10:27:51.526-07:002015-05-12T10:27:51.526-07:00Matthew I'd like to learn more about all this....Matthew I'd like to learn more about all this. Email me separately?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56532947139904873552015-05-12T10:21:00.428-07:002015-05-12T10:21:00.428-07:00About four years ago, on the advice of someone (So...About four years ago, on the advice of someone (Sociotard? Jumper?) here, I entered the Forecasting World Events contest run by IARPA. After two years rated as a "Supercaster" (top 2% in my predictions) at FWE that program was stopped. The top forecasters were encouraged to join the winning iteration of the forecasting contest - The Good Judgment Project. I joined there, and did ok last year but not top 2%. This year is still uncertain how the rankings will come out as a bunch of questions resolve on June 1st. <br /><br />IARPA seems to be done with the project, but the authors are taking Good Judgment into the commercial realm this year. I'm not sure of how they are going to commercialize the idea, but signups to be a forecaster are here:<br /><br />http://www.goodjudgment.com/reg.php <br /><br />I'm signing up to go forward, depending on how the "commercialization" plays out in the contract language. <br /><br />My experiences with the project have been mostly positive, with some caveats - my team last year was comprised of interesting individuals and very little in the way of teamwork on forecasts. This year, I suspect I was part of a focus group on "what happens when we build a group with many members but no involvement." Out of 16 forecasters two of us performed 98% of the work. It has been a fascinating and fun process though. I've spent a great deal of time doing research on world affairs that I never would have looked at without the intervention of the GJP. <br /><br />TL:DR - The group predictions forecasting registry that I told the group I'd join four years ago is going commercial and I have enjoyed my experience with the project so far. Signups at the link above if anyone is interested. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36491177109021429372015-05-12T07:50:55.146-07:002015-05-12T07:50:55.146-07:00@Alfred The methods of science are appropriate fo...@Alfred <i>The methods of science are appropriate for fields of study where claims can be falsified.</i><br /><br />Any prediction based on data can be falsified. It doesn't require an underlying model of reality, although that would be better. Science works by iteration, stripping away the wrong explanations to leave the underlying correct ones (at least approximately). <br />Part of that process is experiment or testing observations. As long as you can measure the information in those experiments, you can improve your hypotheses.<br /><br />Economics is an interesting case as practices can be scientific and non-scientific. Unfortunately the <i>a priori</i> math modeling with little to no testing has gripped much of the academic side. This is clearly unscientific. It would be far better for economists to go back to data analysis again, rather as Piketty has done. However I would argue that when subject to test, then those theories become scientific. A good current popular case is Krugman's pushing of the IS-LM model that predicts low interest rates despite the increase in money supply. The monetarist theory is falsified in this case. Testing this both historically and cross-sectionally with different country policies to economic conditions should be able to falsify it. But economics is very "squishy", and it may be hard to pin down correct theories. Economics used to be a story telling profession until Samuelson made it more mathematical around the middle of the 20thC.<br /><br />Biology can also be very squishy, especially when doing experiments on organisms, usually with relatively small numbers, and applying statistics to determine results. In practice, cherry-picking observations and incorrectly applied statistics result is a lot of poor science. Research on medical papers (particularly prone to bias) has shown that about 1/3 of all papers use the wrong statistics, and recently it was found that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328" rel="nofollow">most cancer research published results are not reproduceable</a>. Furthermore this PLOS essay suggests <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow">most published research is false</a>. In the UK, physician Ben Goldacre has been waging a campaign about drug research that has been "compromised" by pharma funding. His last book about Big Pharma made my blood boil, and I used to be in that industry back in the early 1980's. It seems to have got much worse as the stakes have risen. <br /><br />In a sense, PSB's comments about economics apply to much of industrially oriented science. We now have a vast army of scientists, many of whom are having to get funding from sources outside the government. So we get a problem of increased bias in the results, as well as an increasing amount of marginal fluff that is published to ensure an academic post. Ad in all that PR that institutions create and you get a huge amount of noise being pubished, most of it hyped or even just plain wrong.<br /><br />Finally, that sexy new idea "Data Science" isn't a lot more than doing machine learning correctly. It is called a science, even though it is little more than extracting information outcomes with some chosen variables. To me that borders on scientism, rather than science, as there is no iteration to refine hypotheses of what is really driving the outcomes.<br /> Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18516041850895405422015-05-12T04:53:49.302-07:002015-05-12T04:53:49.302-07:00Duncan, I can't honestly say I know a whole lo...Duncan, I can't honestly say I know a whole lot about economics, so I might not be the best judge here, but I find it difficult to trust not just because of the inherent subjectivity of all human endeavors, but because economics is so directly connected to public policy and business. That direct connection, and how competing economists are endorsed by competing sides in political battles, give the impression that economics is much more scientistic than scientific. Having to make engineering decisions based on squishy numbers sounds bad to most people's ears, but I think that is mostly a result of science PR trying to pass science off as something better than its human components. In a sense it is, because the structure of scientific work ensures that no one individual completely dominates any field. But the public perception of science is that it claims to be perfectly objective, which is not really true. All sciences have a lot of wiggle room, and the entire scientific community can be wrong if they all share a set of underlying assumptions that aren't quite right. What makes the sciences a generally better choice is the fact that it is self-correcting, just as having checks and balances makes democracy a better governance system,<br /><br />But then, I was trained as a social scientist, so I have never been too impressed by the phallic "hard" vs. "soft" terminology, nor "physics envy." I probably just need to educate myself better on economic issues.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59724691151144232642015-05-12T03:05:50.724-07:002015-05-12T03:05:50.724-07:00Chaos is a beast. I know a dynamometer tech who fo...Chaos is a beast. I know a dynamometer tech who found strange attractors in chainsaw vibrations.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70505112727808080122015-05-12T01:21:47.828-07:002015-05-12T01:21:47.828-07:00Hi Alfred
I have problems with your "hard li...Hi Alfred<br /><br />I have problems with your "hard line"<br />In engineering one of the first things that I find I have to teach is that every number is "soft"<br /><br />Every time we measure something we really need to know a lot about the measurement system in order to see how much and how exactly we can use that measurement<br /><br />With that in mind I see no difficulty in seeing economics (and definitely climate science) as being "hard" enough to treat as engineering<br />I have made a lot of engineering decisions on data much softer than the analysis es performed by the likes of Krugman and Piketty Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89176666630742278712015-05-11T18:55:07.628-07:002015-05-11T18:55:07.628-07:00The foundation for sciences aren't falsifiable...The foundation for sciences aren't falsifiable at all, but once you adopt a set of customs regarding what is considered viable evidence and rules for turning subjective information into objective data you get an institution that rewards us by weeding out knowledge that in another field would be an error of faith.<br /><br />Popper had an interesting perspective on where the boundary lies. It isn't perfect, of course. Nothing like that could be. It's still useful and relevant, though. I enjoy using it regarding climate science and climate predictions far more than I enjoy making wagers no one will accept. The anti-science people think they've got me and then discover there is a hook embedded in the lovely lure they bit down upon.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73572225623594980882015-05-11T17:56:22.833-07:002015-05-11T17:56:22.833-07:00Is there any field of science based 100% on falsif...Is there any field of science based 100% on falsifiable propositions? I would guess no, that's math.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86839289361856645942015-05-11T16:29:06.160-07:002015-05-11T16:29:06.160-07:00My point is their claims cannot be falsified. Ther...My point is their claims cannot be falsified. There are always methods for arguing that the collected information is incomplete because there are too many variables. Worse yet, there are unknown variables they can't properly model.<br /><br />I'm not knocking the field itself or the people doing the work. It's just that we commit in error in folding it too neatly into our big models when we try to project our climate into the future. A great deal of caution is required to look forward when you know that you don't know so many things. You have to make use of a broad method that makes probabilistic statements that are understood to be unreliable due to the nature of black swans.<br /><br />I take Popper's hard line regarding what is and what isn't a science, but I do not do so out of some snobbish desire to defend some field or invalidate another. There is plenty of evidence from climate studies to suggest that we must act, but I’m deeply skeptical of any claims to know even the probabilities for the possible futures of even this century. We know the range of what probably possible and that is scary enough to justify action.<br /><br />The methods of science are appropriate for fields of study where claims can be falsified. They are not appropriate for other fields and we do injury to our knowledge in misapplying them.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54107904875055076892015-05-11T15:09:56.794-07:002015-05-11T15:09:56.794-07:00You've described why economics isn't a sci...<i>You've described why economics isn't a science. One cannot falsify their claims because one cannot control the variables that have to be controlled. Simply put, we can't run the experiments we imagine.</i><br /><br />I have to point out, Alfred, that there are plenty of sciences that cannot perform experiments with controlled variables, but are still very much science. Astrophysics. Geology. Most of biology. And, of course, climatology.<br /><br />What these fields can do is use known priciples to create models, and then look for different examples to test their models.<br /><br />Saying that any field which cannot perform controlled experiments is not a "real science" is an excuse used by creationists and other denialists to denigrate fields they don't like. But they are considered sciences.<br /><br />(However, this does not mean I consider economics to necessarily be a science. :))A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19558614557579002302015-05-11T13:29:05.630-07:002015-05-11T13:29:05.630-07:00@Alex: You've described why economics isn'...@Alex: You've described why economics isn't a science. One cannot falsify their claims because one cannot control the variables that have to be controlled. Simply put, we can't run the experiments we imagine. That's the only argument I accept from climate skeptics nowadays. The economics in future projections aren't science.<br /><br />Regarding measles... yikes... scary stuff. I seem to have dodged mine with chemo, but my sister still suffers from one that is going to kill her eventually. No cure known today. I guess I better go read up on what you posted.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77108520057975627632015-05-11T13:23:55.761-07:002015-05-11T13:23:55.761-07:00It's interesting that when conservatives want ...It's interesting that when conservatives want to criticize the left, it is called "Judicial Activism", but it is OK when they want to snarl up government. <br /><br />Extremists have used this technique to block tax collection, property repossession and claims of sovereignty from US soil.<br /><br />Large companies have use the courts to avoid/delay paying large fines.<br /><br />Patent trolls also use the courts to extort money from smaller firms.<br /><br />Legal means were used by Virginia's AG to attempt to "harass"/snare climatologist Michael Mann and the UVA until the VA Supreme Court stopped it. <br /><br />These tactics are classic. Murray is clever to frame this as a David (everyman?) vs Goliath (big government). Others need to reframe it differently to show how egregious this it.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2436237220879093102015-05-11T13:03:03.759-07:002015-05-11T13:03:03.759-07:00Betting is not new in the climate change world. S...Betting is not new in the climate change world. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment for example.<br /><br />Note particularly the way Lindzen and others wiggle out of it. That does not stop them from continuing the propaganda war. Betting will only be useful if you can drum up the publicity behind it to make them look like liars or fools, and have that seen far and wide, for refusing the bet. Then remind them of it EVERY TIME they show up in public again.<br /><br />The trouble is that their side is well funded. They can afford to buy billboards and editorials. Who has the money to oppose them?Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90822528328032847712015-05-11T11:21:56.540-07:002015-05-11T11:21:56.540-07:00Re: regulations (which was last post's subject...Re: regulations (which was last post's subject, wasn't it?). Conservative Charles Murray has a plan to render useless regulations from the EPA, OSHA, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Create a fund to pay for a bunch of small suits against these agencies until they stop enforcing regulations.<br /><br />Read about it at (an admittedly biased source): http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/charles-murray-wants-right-wing-use-scientology-strategy-legal-war-us-government<br /><br />A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52273434417057054582015-05-11T08:43:50.383-07:002015-05-11T08:43:50.383-07:00@Paul451
I noticed that Forbes is already moving ...@Paul451<br /><br /><i>I noticed that Forbes is already moving the goal-posts on judging failure. "Too soon to tell", "their mistake was promising too much".</i><br /><br />I was reading the comments about the Kansas experiment on the econ blog "Marginal Revolution". There were enough commenters who were saying the equivalent of "the experiment would have worked BUT the conditions were changed".<br /><br />If you make a bet, you want it to be as clean as possible. Who would accept a racing bet if the race course was flooded just as the race started?<br /><br />If you do insist on strict terms and the loser feels cheated, this doesn't do anything to change minds, just makes the net wager even more difficult to do. Isn't this going to end up with the same results as a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma? <br /><br />I note that Dr. Brin wants the bets to be "bit painful". When does this transition from a technique to "Watch how fast the cheap cowards back off!" to a perception of bullying?Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67145268824806692522015-05-10T23:22:13.994-07:002015-05-10T23:22:13.994-07:00Seems like the apologist for Kansas in Forbes is R...Seems like the apologist for Kansas in Forbes is Rex Sinquefield who is desperate to prove his idea is correct that tax rate cuts are the key to wealth creation in spite of the evidence and what most economists say. Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15625084325711123242015-05-10T22:02:59.243-07:002015-05-10T22:02:59.243-07:00Re: Kansas/Brownback experiment.
I noticed that F...Re: Kansas/Brownback experiment.<br /><br />I noticed that Forbes is already moving the goal-posts on judging failure. "Too soon to tell", "their mistake was promising too much". (paraphrasing)Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63581997603677527632015-05-10T18:28:40.767-07:002015-05-10T18:28:40.767-07:00Hey Jumper I don't mind being the collector of...Hey Jumper I don't mind being the collector of debts via tipjar. Just inform me here when it happens! I'll channel any wagers to charity. Only, of course, this works for nickel-dollar honor bets. If we lived near each other -- buying the group a pitcher.<br /><br />My wager challenge is meant to have bigger stakes, enough to be a bit painful. <br /><br /> "If you're sure enough about your paranoid trip to inflict pain on our national consensus, then you should be sure enough to put money on the table."<br /><br />That's more difficult. But it has worked, from time to time.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com