Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:
Scientists are disappointed that, contrary to candidate Obama’s promises, what the nation actually is getting from President Obama is “a culture of politics trumping science” (“Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier,” July 11).
No sensible person – much less any scientist – should be surprised by this reality. Pres. Obama is a politician. His promises to voters to pursue science rather than politics are as credible as a prostitute’s promises to a client to pursue love rather than profit.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 129 comments }
← Previous Comments
I wouldn't say modelling cannot provide a useful approximation to reality for some purposes. If quantities are involved, there is the possibility a mathematical model will be of some use. But the possibility of a such a model doesn't mean someone has built one. And bad models, and wrong inferences from model results, abound. It seems that nobody cares, as long as the complexity of the mathematical operations is impressive, or the ease of model manipulation is satisfying, or the results are what is desired.
Any decent mathematician can provide interesting transformations of a model. But it takes an economist (or scientist) to build the model in the first place, from their understanding of reality. From both regards, the keynesiac models are less than impressive.
If he didn't like the father of his patients, what would he do?
What could he do?
Intentionally give bad advice, a misdiagnosis or the wrong prescription?
Do you think he is clever enough to do that and get away with something like that?
Do you think he has the courage to take on such a risk?
I don't.
Good points.
The point, why not? If the people the paper report on have trouble understanding a simple point, then someone should write a letter demonstrating it.
Actually, I was thinking non-scientific fields of study when I wrote that. I should have specified more clearly.
Though, I do think that there is a tendency even for scientists to confuse complex systems and complex dynamic systems.
To me the distinguishing characteristic between the two is the aggregate at which you are modeling. In true science, often is the case you can model at an aggregate that represents the elementary particles – even in a complex system.
In other areas, like macroecon, the math resides well above the elementary particle level for simplification, because we can't model at the elementary particle level. What is the elementary particle level of an economic system? It certainly isn't C,I or G. It's probably more like the neuron and we'd need to model the billions of clumps of billions of neurons that make up the economic system – along with other factors such as geography, weather, seasons, plate tectonics, etc. In other words, we'd have to create an identical reality.
That isn't to say, to VikingVista's point, that simplified models of such realities can't be useful. But, they certainly shouldn't be assumed to be useful.
And quantum mechanics is being modeled at about the most basic elementary level possible.
I'd love to chat with you more. We can do so if you click through on my name.
I agree. See my post above. I think the level that is being modeled makes a difference.
Nice.
From a layperson's perspective, climate science has seemed to be infected with politics. Any system of people will have politics, so that doesn't surprise me. That so many people deny it, that does surprise me.
I'm guessing your area of expertise hasn't yet been found useful for misrepresenting to consolidate political power. And, I'm willing to bet that politics plays a bigger role in model criticism in your area of expertise than you may recognize. Unless your community is made up of something other than people.
“I'm willing to bet that politics plays a bigger role in model criticism in your area of expertise than you may recognize. Unless your community is made up of something other than people.”
Ha, yes, there is definitely politics. I can name names and accompanying annoying theories.
But perhaps that kind of politics is normal and right as a source of motivation. It's fun to show flaws in the bigwigs' models, especially the ones that are jerks. Actually this supports my point with regard to modeling in climatology. Even if everyone in that field agrees that global warming is real, everyone wants his own model or approach to be better than the others'. This should be true in any field.
Note that I'm talking about computational climate models, not the AGW hypothesis. My specific claim is that climatologists do criticize one anothers' models, and probably their own, and that the result is better models. In my limited understanding the main purpose of these models is not to predict prospectively future climate but to predict retrospectively the climate we have already observed. If my model fails to account for an important, observed effect, you would benefit professionally from pointing that out.
To back up my claims, I'll have to go with the always popular “this one guy told me some stuff this one time,” since I've heard a grand total of 1 seminar regarding climate modeling, and the subject was code integrity rather than model integrity. I posted a link to the PowerPoint above, but it's probably not as good of a presentation without the dude that presented it.
I should also point out that my 15% modeling, 85% criticism is a rough estimate based on my own work style. Obviously this accounting does not include the beer drinking, playing FreeCell, or reading cafehayek.com.
I'm enjoying these exchanges, thanks.
What's the cutoff for how elementary the particles need to be? For instance, in molecular biophysics we generally model on the level of individual atoms, treating them as a single entity rather than complex systems of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Obviously we give up some resolution on a very fine level–for instance, all chemical reactions involve rearranging electrons, so when we don't treat the electrons explicitly the models can't do chemical reactions. Even so, treating atoms as single lumps works pretty well for all sorts of problems. Going even further, some chemical simulations treat whole molecules as single particles. For instance, sometimes water molecules are treated as one entity rather than two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O), and even though this is “wrong” it's still a useful approximation in the right circumstances.
Maybe the problem with macroeconomics is something like this: I could model a water molecule as a lump, but there is no possible way that model could provide any information about what the hydrogen atoms are doing. The analogy to macro might be that when treating demand as one huge lump, that there is no possible way to tell what the smaller constituent “particles,” companies or consumers should be doing, since we lumped them away from the beginning.
Where's the cutoff? I think it depends on what you're talking about.
If you're talking merely about complex systems, which covers most of physical sciences, then the cutoff is where you are reasonably certain of the behavior of the aggregate. We have enough experience with water molecules to know each has similar enough properties to one another.
If we're talking about complex, dynamic systems, then the aggregate is less obvious. I'm much different than my brother, but also very much the same.
Thank you. Good stuff. I've enjoyed it as well.
In my line of work, I have rarely benefited professionally from pointing out failures of models – be they math or mental – to account for important, observed effects. I might be jaded. It may be different in your line of work. If so, congrats.
I don't wish death on anyone. The fact is people like you argue for deregulation. That deregulation is specifically linked to the deaths of rig workers, coal miners ect….
Anytime you want to sit down in front of these peoples families or maybe the families of owners of businesses in the Gulf that have lost everything and debate our two sides of the issue I'd be glad to do so… and you can even invite the people from the medical board.
My point is that if justice were served these disasters would hit the people responsible for them. Yeah it wasn't YOUR family but it WAS some ones family…. and you did not wish death on them but you contributed your part to it actually happening. YOU are responsible more than those of us who would have required better safety standard and a second bore hole.
That's our Gulf, that's our ocean, that's our oil, we grant them corporate charters… THEY take the oil under the conditions WE set. If they don't like and if you don't like then too bad.
Liberty is not served by letting corporations run amuck and destroy other peoples liberty.
I did respond and it is you who is actually making a real threat… not me. But it's not even a real threat as the Medical board doesn't control my rights of free speech… and neither do you. I'm am consistently rated one of the top physicians in my group by my 1450 patients. My panel is always over filled and I regularly have to keep it closed.
I didn't wish death on your family. The point is if a family has to die because we didn't regulate an industry properly wouldn't justice seem to be served if the family hit was the one supporting deregulation?
What I say here isn't going to effect your family. But REAL families WERE effected and lost lives because of what you believe. REAL PEOPLE VV!.. they are dead… that's what I care about.
And BS that regulation doesn't work. Seat belts saved hundreds of thousands of lives as do mandatory vaccinations.
Actually you deserve a tidal wave of crude to sweep you and your family away and if you live or don't you should have nothing to say about it. – Yasafi to VikingVista, on July 11, 2010.
Sure sounds like a death-wish to me.
I didn't wish death on your family.
From Yasafi to VikingVista on July 11, 2010.
Actually you deserve a tidal wave of crude to sweep you and your family away and if you live or don't you should have nothing to say about it.
Sure sounds like a death-wish to me.
Why dicker with Democracy with the hollow strawman of a hollow illiberal Democracy? People are for Representative Democracy. The mere fact that Presidents were elected by a majority of eligible voters from the start show they weren't thinking either of Monarchy or 'self-rule'.
Hmmm, let see:
Article 1, Clause 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
The “democracy” may not appear but there's a process for the People to vote in elections. Hmmm. That's doesn't sound like a system of 'self-rule'.
Then again neither “individuals” nor “guns” appear in the 2nd Amendment yet many would claim there's a right for the individual to own guns without interference.
Then again why would companies undertake scientific research that would undermine them? Why would tobacco companies want to have research that shows smoking is bad or why coal mining companies want to know if global warming has any basis? Better not to do the research and see what happens.
As is usually the case with democracy, 99+% of people were only offered the choices their leaders wanted them to have. Democracy is not the voice of the people, Gil. Think about it. The idea is absurd. There is no voice of the people. There couldn't possibly be. We are not Borg.
The first Presidential election wasn't a decision about what people's favorite form of Federal governance (or lack thereof) was. No person was even given the option of opting out of whatever decision the process came up with. Hell, the Founders were not even charged to write a Constitution. They were sent to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. They just took it upon themselves to create a new country.
You need to stop thinking that democracy is something that it is not. Not even the Founders had reverence for it. The democracy-worshipers in this country came much later–after the population had been sufficiently dumbed down. And it didn't help that de Tocqueville confused the language by using the word “Democracy” to instead refer essentially to the entirety of American culture.
“The “democracy” may not appear but there's a process for the People to vote in elections. Hmmm. That's doesn't sound like a system of 'self-rule'.”
No. It sounds a lot like a republic.
re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik]
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
“Then again neither 'individuals' nor 'guns' appear in the 2nd Amendment yet many would claim there's a right for the individual to own guns without interference.”
The second amendment does not grant rights to individuals, it limits the rights of the State. That would be a Constitutional Republic.
Because if a company understands that they have extreme liabilities it's often better to welcome litigation and settle early. My guess is they've already calculated the risk of wait and “see what happens,” and they've calculated it for both science and politics. Their decisions, scientific and political, are meant to maximize the expected value of their options.
So you don't believe a Constitutional Representative Democracy is a rightful form of organisation or something? After all, defintions of Democracy include both the direct form as well as the representative form.
On the other hand, a republic is merely a state not ruled by a Monarchy. Hence when Australians are talking of becoming a Republic, they're talking about ditching the Queen as the Head of State. They're not talking of whether they're going to ditch their Constitution or installing a Direct Democracy. Of course, it's hypocritical when Switzerland's Direct Democracy is reckoned to be more conductive towards Libertarian freedom than Representative Democracy:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/holland9.1.1.html
P.S. I know what I wrote. You might as well have said people have a duty to underground and overthrow the government when it become too big and problematic.
Aw shucks, Hoppe reckons a Monarchy is more beneficial because it's a job for life and they don't have to pander to win elections Besides the Founders thought Reprentative Democracy was okay because that's how they started it and how it is now except the frachise is a lot bigger.
Again real people died in the Gulf and in the minds because of YOUR philosophy that predominates and allows corporations to skirt regulation.
Rather then supporting good government your simple solution to side with the corporations and berate all government IS KILLING REAL PEOPLE.
I am trying to save the lives of real people even if it actually means something horrific like a CEO may only make $100 million instead of $200 million. Yeah I'm the bastard.
My point is that if justice were served these disasters would hit the people responsible for them.
Justice is not served because the government, the organization tasked with the administration of justice, has abdicated its duty. Instead of blind justice the government doles out favors to the well connected. That crony capitalism, not free market.
For example the $75 million cap on liability.
Without that cap it is likely that the people drilling for the oil may have exercised more risk avoidance. If they had to bear full responsibility for a leak they could go bankrupt, so they would have taken more steps to avoid it.
Why bother when the government limits your responsibility?
This is a problem not caused by a lack of regulation, but a lack of justice.
Still they had the wisdom to put strict limits on what the Representatives could do. This is what kept our government from becoming a defacto Monarchy. At least until Pres. Lincoln.or was it FDR?
I am trying to save the lives of real people…
Oh, God damn it, give up the charade. You don't give a shit about lives unless they're politically expedient. You didn't give a shit about the lives that your Righteous Ruler condemned to starvation, because a few lives had to be sacrificed to create the perfect society.
You don't give a shit about the lives of V.V's kids (they're real people too, Ducktard), because their father opposes your politics. Ducktor, you wrote, “Actually you deserve a tidal wave of crude to sweep you and your family away and if you live or don't you should have nothing to say about it.” Don't try and go Florence Nightingale on us now.
They're were the only ones to think of a Constitution?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.