Forum menu
raybanwomble
Member
The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.
Positive economics is a science of sorts, albeit as you say one with a lack of scientific rigour, and also filled with subjective value decisions, and maybe most seriously hampered with a lack of truly knowable facts. (since it's very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible...). It's not truly a science imo for these reasons, not as we understand science today- but at least it aspires to be, and that's important.It's got a lot in common with pre-enlightenment science tbh.
But normative economics is absolutely art that pretends it's a science. It doesn't lack rigour; it actively avoids it. At some point, for too many people it stopped being "how to get the world to become how you want" and became "how to tell people the world is how you want it to be". It stopped being "should be" and became "is".
And sadly the face of economics that gets the attention, the book deals and the unquestioning love of politicians, is the latter. And no wonder, facts are <boring>, and provable facts in economics tend to be small and mundane seeming. Big mad ideas are exciting, and the less boringly rooted in reality they are the more exciting they get, and the harder they are to prove or disprove the longer they'll stay exciting.
'twas ever thus, but IMO it's worse now than ever. And these 2 problems together mean that economics as a whole is not a science, nor even for the most part art that behaves scientifically- it's just wearing a scienceskin coat. The fact that economic idealism is even a thing is incredibly telling- you shouldn't need a name for "how to use positive economics to get you to the places described by normative economics", that's just how applied normative economics works. If you're not referring to "how it is" and "why it is this way" when thinking about "how it should be" then you're never going to get there.
But now if you're a normative economist that isn't basically making it up, you need a special name.
Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.
. (since it’s very hard to test anything complex, novel or powerful in economics, because modelling the real world is staggeringly difficult while comparative experimentation in the real world on any meaningful scale is basically impossible…).
Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science.
Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.
raybanwomble
Member
Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.
The thing about meteorology, is that tomorrow's weather doesn't depend on human decision making. And it doesn't have a whole wing dedicated to telling you that the weather ought to be sunny next sunday because you're going on a bike ride.
The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.
We already have History and Philosophy on the curriculum as well.
I'm going to go even further now and state that whilst Britain has a strong scientific and engineering streak, it does not have a strong cultural attachment to it. Whilst the United States, Germany and Japan built their economies on the back of the scientific and engineering feats, science and engineering, despite weirdly being the home of the industrial revolution has always played second fiddle and been looked down on by Oxbridge financiers, lawyers etc. The epitomy of that for me was when I was travelling back to Oxford from London on the coach and overheard two fusty Oxford professors agreeing that Neville Chamberlain was a useless PM because he was an "engineer", despite the fact that he actually flunked out of metallurgy school.
That attitude also shows itself by the fact that whenever we discover or push a scientific or engineering breakthrough, we manage to piss it up the wall.
Right - so moving the goalposts now then Rayban.
Or evidence based thinking, eg the sciences.
You see this is where your narrow based thinking and education let you down
Evidence based thinking is a key part of all the healthcare professions, of sociology, of philosophy indeed of almost all learning.
Thus teaching it helps all learning.
Its one of the building blocks of all learning and if you actually had an open mind not one that is rigid and narrowly based and without your obvious biases you would understand that. If you could admit just once that your understanding is limited it would help you make coherent arguments
Yo want everyone to be able to understand politics better but according to you only those trained rigidly in science have the ability to think critically.
With that - once again I am going out of this for a bit. Fun tho it is to watch you tie yourself in rhetorical knots in your desire to score debating points but its also some that frustrating that your first instinct is to prove you re right rather than consider another point of view. If you do not understand it then it must be wrong.
Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.
Evidence is available in all sorts of things that are not science. Like nursing for example. Evidence based practice is a key aspect
bye
Wrong again.
An evidence-based practice (EBP) is any practice that relies on scientific evidence for guidance and decision-making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_practice
We already have History and Philosophy on the curriculum as well.
They aren't compulsory - optional GCSEs AFAIK. And Philosophy wasn't offered at our school.
I'm saying these things should be part of the core personal education that they do (whatever it's called these days) that covers stuff like relationships and sex etc.
I agree that History should certainly be compulsory.
IIRC a humanity is compulsory. I think for most people it's Geography which is pretty bloody useless.
Geography is awesome, again a subject that could be treated with more rigor.
Currently about halfway through Kaplans "The Revenge of Geography".
The problem was, as I remember when I was at school, is that the GCSE version of geography is boringly dry and little attempt was made to connect it to other subjects.
Let's not pretend both parties won't be trying to use the London bridge attacks as the polls tighten
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1200894260247179265?s=20
Geography is awesome, again a subject that could be treated with more rigor.
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don't know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don’t know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
The lack of attention given to that is again, a very British disease - probably because we are islanders. A shame, because we used to have a strong culture of geographical mindset during the enlightenment.
I'd certainly say it's more important than media studies or philosophy at GCSE level, maybe History and Geography could be rolled into one subject as they complement each other so well.
I saw something earlier about it looking like Rabb might lose his seat. That implies that the polls can be viewed by constituency. If that's the case, where can that info be found? My google-fu is weak tonight.
That was delatpolls constituency level polling onzadog
Rabb is the one I most want to see lose his seat, more than Boris.
I think some of the Tories are getting nervous
Matt Hancock has had a bruising time trying to keep winning that 50,000 nurses lie
https://twitter.com/MrBenSellers/status/1200825647653933058?s=20
Onza - this was posted by mattyfez a couple of days ago; betting odds from paddy power by party by constituency.
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/england-constituencies-a-d
What does it teach you that is as important as how to decide how your country should be run? I honestly don’t know, and I have an A in GCSE Geography.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
The lack of attention given to that is again, a very British disease – probably because we are islanders. A shame, because we used to have a strong culture of geographical mindset during the enlightenment.
I’d certainly say it’s more important than media studies or philosophy at GCSE level, maybe History and Geography could be rolled into one subject as they complement each other so well.
Philosophy is the source of critical thinking; lumping it in with media studies does it a gross disservice.
JP
raybanwomble
Member
Wrong again.
Well congratulations- you just tried to correct a nurse, who was explaining to you about how evidence based practice works in nursing, with a wikipedia article. Had enough of experts...
Well congratulations- you just tried to correct a nurse, who was explaining to you about how evidence based practice works in nursing, with a wikipedia article. Had enough of experts…
The vast - and I mean the huge majority of evidence used in nursing is based on the scientific method. Evidence based practice in nursing exploits scientific research.
He also actually kind of agreed with my original premise, that you all took issue with - when he stated that
Thus teaching it (evidence based thinking) helps all learning.
Talk about tying yourself in knots.
Philosophy is the source of critical thinking; lumping it in with media studies does it a gross disservice.
Historically, yes you are right. I'm not sure what the relevance is of that at a GCSE level.
It's also responsible for some outright stupidity.
https://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again
Really? Really
you are trying to tell me how my profession works?
first you say only science teaches critical thinking, then you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me ( correctly) nursing is not a science then you tell me evidence based practice in nursing is based on scientific method.
That really is your best yet!
first you say only science teaches critical thinking, then you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me ( correctly) nursing is not a science then you tell me evidence based practice in nursing is based on scientific method.
I stated science teaches critical thinking, it was the implicit assertion on Sobriety that it did not - and you defended it.
n you say only scientists use evidence based practice, you tell me
I have not stated that, I have stated that evidence based practice is based on the scientific method and investigation. You have been squarking that evidence based practice is not just used by science, despite the fact that it is almost entirely based on science in a clinical setting and despite the fact that I have asserted that evidence based thinking is important anyway.
I have never stated that science is the only evidence based discipline
When I stated that
evidence based thinking, eg the sciences
Did I use "ergo the sciences" or "eg the sciences" - TJ?
However, at a GCSE level - evidence base thinking is probably best highlighted by the sciences especially as that is what the majority of evidence based thinking is predicated upon.
It's intentional - there is a strategy set out by the campaign to slur the opposition at every opportunity. The flyer sent by my local (and moderate) Conservative had a third of a page devoted to Labour and Corbyn.
They do this because they have a void of policies that are meaningful to every day people. They have to play by "LOOK! LOOK! LOOK AT LABOUR! LOOK!" every five seconds as a distraction. We see the same in America - those who are under investigation for whatever simply hurl those same charges at their opposition, no matter how wildly outlandish.
Honestly, for those who haven't seen Priti Patel's tweet about Usman Khan being in the streets, I'll save you the bother - she's blaming Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan for not sending the stabby terrorist **** down with a harsher sentence. No acknowledgement of who has been in power since with a Home Secretary ultimately responsible for reviewing Usman Khan's release and rehabilitation given that the intelligence services most certainly will have kept tabs on him. I'll be that she didn't even open Usman Khan's case file until yesterday.
As for Hancock, it's theatre - it's the same playbook we saw in 2016 in America.
Right now in politics, shit floats. It floats there because the worst possible candidates seem to attract the most attention and inevitably funding. Maybe the wrong sort of people want to fund this shitshow to make a massive profit while we're all spluttering over our tea whenever Mark Francois opens his capacious, but vapid army issue gob. Something else is quietly not making the news. Always read the small print.
How it should be run in relation to the rest of the world we live with, geography defines nations.
Not being arsey but really - how? Nothing I learned at GCSE was anything to do with geopolitics. And I'd say history defines nations far more than geography..!
Geography has nothing to do with wether or not you want a small or big state. That is directly relevant to how you vote, and it's a philosophy question.
And I’d say history defines nations far more than geography..!
This is what Kaplans book is all about, it goes into detail on how geography defines cultrue, people, it's intersection with ethnography and thus how it drives history in a more deterministic fashion than we care to think.
Has anyone else seen the story that Raaaaaabs seat is now at risk? 50/50 he is going to lose it
Now that would make me smile
I posted a link to the Raab poll last page
But everyone was arguing about geography lessons
And I’d say history defines nations far more than geography..!
I'd argue that in this context, history is largely a function of geography.
Mods - can you move all the philosophical and critical thinking comments somewhere over there >>> and let posters get back to the thread title which is '2019 General Election'.
I have no doubt that the hijacking of this thread has stifled meaningful discussion.
Those posters who are responsible for this de-railing have done themselves no favours in how other see them.
Owen Jones on 5Live now - what a gobshite.
Apologies for my part in it Frank
I have no doubt that the hijacking of this thread has stifled meaningful discussion.
what a gobshite.
woops
Owen Jones on 5Live now – what a gobshite.
It's called being a decent human being.
Has anyone else seen the story that Raaaaaabs seat is now at risk? 50/50 he is going to lose it
Esher & Walton:
CON: 46% (-13)
LDEM: 41% (+24)
LAB: 9% (-11)
This is where the power of tactical voting really shows, just a few more Labour votes switch and his 23,000 majority is gone.
23,000.
Think how many seats have substantially smaller majoritys than that.
Average Tory lead is around 10%
There is 3.1 m newly registered voters
Of which 2/3 are under 35, and over a million under 25.
If this (out of date) poll is to be believed
With some decent tactical voting that 10% doesn't look so safe.
I saw that kiksy
Tories won popular vote by 750k last time , if new voters vote like that it's about net 1m extra voters for labour, but at constituency level & taking into account lib Dems it might not change anything
Missed out the BMG poll yesterday
2nd one to out us back in possible hung parliament territory
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200822322921398273?s=19
Pretty sure Boris was hoping for an easier ride on marr
He just chunters with a smirk on his face.
I like to think I’m quite empathetic but I genuinely cannot see why people think he’s a decent person and a suitable candidate for PM.
The man is an arse of the highest order.