JS Mill, free speech, and creationism/global warming

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Parts of economics are scientific. Parts are not particularly scientific. Parts are pseudoscientific.

Any part can be critiqued on grounds on methodology, logic, and mathematics. Ergo, in any part of economics, one can do work that is demonstrably unscientific, as much so as creationism. And, in my experience, such demonstrably unscientific ideas are still discussed in HS economics classes. In part this may be because what is not demonstrably unscientific in economics is still broader than what is not demonstrably unscientific in biology, and so its easier for HS bio teachers to have a handle on what the appropriate limits are then in the case of economics. Keeping in mind the limitations of both HS econ and bio teachers.

BTW, KH, I assume youve read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? (not that that would justify creationism, but more as to shedding light on the issues of the role of methodology in natural science vs social science - some of the elitism of natural science vs social science IS based, AFAICT, on a misreading of the actual history of natural science. Though Id be reluctant to draw Feyarabend policy conclusions)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I was of the impression you were making an argument from liberal principles, not an utilitarian one?

A mix of both.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, KH, I assume youve read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

No.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, KH, I assume youve read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? (not that that would justify creationism, but more as to shedding light on the issues of the role of methodology in natural science vs social science - some of the elitism of natural science vs social science IS based, AFAICT, on a misreading of the actual history of natural science. Though Id be reluctant to draw Feyarabend policy conclusions)

QFT. Construing the scientific method as an idealised Popperian endeavour is one of the errors that even scientists constantly make.

[Jon Miller]

I wanted to make a snipe at Biology, but I would feel too guilty.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

some of the elitism of natural science vs social science IS based, AFAICT, on a misreading of the actual history of natural science. Though Id be reluctant to draw Feyarabend policy conclusions)

My elitism (physical vs life vs social) is based on a few things.

Fundamental physics is incredibly simple. It was thus the first to be properly "mathematised" (not counting mathematics itself). While other sciences were piddling around with huge numbers of only vaguely interrelated observations, none of which were all that quantitative, physics (and, later, chemistry) were busy steaming forward. They had much less complicated systems to deal with, which gave rise to simpler and more precise measurements. There were also simpler unifying theories. A number of these were found throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. As time went on, the logical structure of the physical sciences became extremely rigorous and complex (despite the systems being simpler). Also, because the science itself was so logically appealing it drew many of the most logically creative minds to it. The best "mathematical" minds worked in mathematics and the physical sciences.

Only recently have scientists in the life sciences, and also, to some extent in the social sciences (most notably in economics) been able to finally start disaggregating the numerous different effects they attempt to study. Partly they're benefitting from the tools developed by the physical sciences (the actual theories, the statistically correct measurement conventions, the mathematical tools, computers). Partly they've amassed a large body of data, and have drawn some useful lines to separate distinct issues. As time goes on, some of the complex systems are beginning to yield to rigorous analysis.

In other words, the relatively late development of a proper scientific structure in the social and life sciences is not entirely due to the difference in the people not working on them. There are significant intrinsic reasons as well. Also, I believe that you are seeing a greater diffusion of "mathematical" minds working on these late bloomers. They would not have been drawn to them before, but the prospect of working in a more rigorous framework is appealing to this type of person.

Mostly I just rag on economists. A lot of them are pretty smart people.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT. Construing the scientific method as an idealised Popperian endeavour is one of the errors that even scientists constantly make.

Science is messy. I'll be the first to admit it. Individuals don't get things right the first time, generally.

But over reasonable timespans (a decade or two), a community of scientists can construct very robust theories.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

BTW, KH, I assume youve read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

No.

Really?!?!?! Wow. I read it when I was 19 (and yes, under the tutelage of physicists and astronomers at a major US university - thank God for distribution requirements)

Nostromo will correct me, but its like THE major work on philosophy/history of science the last 50 years. Beyond familiarity with actual scientific practice(which youve obviously got), its probably the most important thing to know to participate in meta-science arguements like this. Not only to question your own views, KH, but also cause some of the people you will disagree with will cite Kuhn, often incorrectly, and youd be better armed seeing what he actually did say.

Youve GOT to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn

[KrazyHorse]

No, I don't. The philosophy of science is not a particularly appealing subject to me. It's like reading about the philosophy of meat packing when you work at a butcher's. You know pretty much everything they're saying...

[KrazyHorse]

I know who Kuhn is. I've chosen not to read it.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuhn's work was, I think, obvious to a lot of physicists by his time. It had never been articulated before because the events which led to it arose in the early 20th century, and it was the middle of the 20th century before anybody had any perspective on it.

I can name, off the top of my head, half a dozen "paradigm shifts" which occurred in that time frame. At this point, anybody receiving a physics education (which is generally taught historically, from Newton onwards) has almost no choice but to realise that fundamental shifts in viewpoint happen virtually overnight.

It was probably a good idea to articulate this idea, but I think it was simply one whose time had come. The time and the source of this "paradigm shift" are completely unsurprising to me...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I don't. The philosophy of science is not a particularly appealing subject to me. It's like reading about the philosophy of meat packing when you work at a butcher's. You know pretty much everything they're saying...

The philosophy of meatpacking is presumably, the set of conceptions that understands why butchers do what they do, and how they do it, is presumably, economics, and i daresay most folks who work at butchers have at most a naive, limited view of it. Ditto history of meatpacking. (We've always had meat inspectors, its just the way we do things, Upton Sinclair, who the hell is he?)

And Im not convinced the same is any different for scientists. In fact i think its likely not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Kuhn's work was, I think, obvious to a lot of physicists by his time. It had never been articulated before because the events which led to it arose in the early 20th century, and it was the middle of the 20th century before anybody had any perspective on it.

I can name, off the top of my head, half a dozen "paradigm shifts" which occurred in that time frame. At this point, anybody receiving a physics education (which is generally taught historically, from Newton onwards) has almost no choice but to realise that fundamental shifts in viewpoint happen virtually overnight.

IIRC one of Kuhns points it that it DOESNT happen overnight. It happens gradually, largely through generational shift. Again, its not that long a book, with your knowledge of physics it should be a much easier read than it was for me, I dont know why youre avoiding it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I find it interesting that the devotees of the more sophisticated sciences of physics wherein the pace of paradigm shifts occur on a frequent basis think the same pace holds in other scientific fields.

What makes one think the other fields aren't a bunch of group thinkers incapable of recognizing a paradigm shift if it came up and took a crap in their breakfast cereal?

[KrazyHorse]

Because I don't like people from 45 years ago telling me how things work today.

In fact, I think his work is probably obsolete itself...