07 May 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI think where this differs is that the physicists in the article ran a simulation with the intention of following up the simulation with a controlled experiment. The nature of economics is such that controlled experiments are often very difficult (if not impossible) to run. This is not a small point. You can model and observe real-life outcomes for comparison until the cows come home, but unless the experiment is well-controlled it is extremely difficult to get a sense of how accurate the prediction is and what factors are fundamental to the theory. The economic reality in most cases is simply too complex to break it down into manageable, well-controlled parts (probably due to the fact that human behaviour plays a fundamental role in economics). Economic study is vitally important in today's world, but its predictions will never have the same certainty as those from, say, the law of gravity.
To clarify, the point of my question was outing those who are so quick to say that economics is not a science and yet accept the same exact thing as science when the people doing it call themselves physicists.
For the record, string theorists take a lot of flack (and rightly so) for thinking up marvelous ways the universe could be composed, but for making predictions which are impossible to test (as of yet, anyway).
07 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's not quite true. I believe you're referring to the n-body problem (generalization of the 3-body problem) here, which apparently has an analytical solution but one which converges so slowly that it's "useless for practical purposes":
The law of gravity doesn't produce such precise results when you're talking about a galaxy or other system with many large masses all interacting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-body_problem#n-body_problem
I think getting a good prediction from the law of gravity is more of a problem when you're dealing with very small scales and high energy values.
07 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6You're not paying attention. These people are doing the exact same thing as economists. The controlled experiment in the article is also in a small group when the simulation is for much larger societies. It's exactly the same thing in economics. The ONLY difference is that this is labeled as being done as physicists. The ONLY one.
I think where this differs is that the physicists in the article ran a simulation with the intention of following up the simulation with a controlled experiment. The nature of economics is such that controlled experiments are often very difficult (if not impossible) to run. This is not a small point. You can model and observe real-life outcomes for compariso could be composed, but for making predictions which are impossible to test (as of yet, anyway).
This is an economic problem, using economic tools (game theory with agent-based simulations) and methodologies (including experiments in small groups). There is no escaping that.
07 May 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNo need to get snippy. Here's the description of the future experiment they gave in the article:
You're not paying attention. These people are doing the exact same thing as economists. The controlled experiment in the article is also in a small group when the simulation is for much larger societies. It's exactly the same thing in economics. The ONLY difference is that this is labeled as being done as physicists. The ONLY one.
This is an economic prob ...[text shortened]... lations) and methodologies (including experiments in small groups). There is no escaping that.
"They want 36 test subjects who can interact, and help determine how cooperative and moral behaviors arise, and whether people behave as the statistical physics say they will."
I have to admit, the description isn't adequate to determine whether or not the experiment is well-designed. But if it is, then it's science. If it's not, then it isn't science. The key will be whether the experiment is well-controlled, which will in turn lead to it being reproducible and falsifiable. I'm sure you know of some economic experiments that meet these criteria, and I'm sure you know many more that don't. The ones that do are scientific, the ones that don't aren't scientific. Simple.
As a side note, you sound like you're taking someone's criticism of your chosen field personally. Don't.
07 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe other thing I'd add is that when I say I don't consider it a science, that doesn't mean I'm putting the discipline down. I consider the social sciences (which is where I'd put economics) - and the humanities, for that matter - all to be very important.
Fair enough, nice answer. I agree that "economics" is used and abused in an unscientific manner (especially by politicians, journalists and the abominable "think-tanks" ), but the discipline is not at fault for that...
08 May 10
Originally posted by mtthwDid you change your mind about this being science or about economics being a science?
The other thing I'd add is that when I say I don't consider it a science, that doesn't mean I'm putting the discipline down. I consider the social sciences (which is where I'd put economics) - and the humanities, for that matter - all to be very important.
08 May 10
Originally posted by PBE6I'm just pointing out people's contradictions when it comes to economics.
No need to get snippy. Here's the description of the future experiment they gave in the article:
"They want 36 test subjects who can interact, and help determine how cooperative and moral behaviors arise, and whether people behave as the statistical physics say they will."
I have to admit, the description isn't adequate to determine whethe ...[text shortened]... d like you're taking someone's criticism of your chosen field personally. Don't.
Before you considered it a crucial experiment and when it was pointed out to you that economics does the exact same thing it suddenly became doubtful. Coincidence? Right.
You're probably an engineer, right? Engineers often fail to realize that theory leads testing and is a crucial part of science. Being scientific is not the same as being "the Truth", as the process of science is riddled with new scientific theories updating older ones. Sciences go from approximation to approximation, not from absence of knowledge to truth.
08 May 10
Originally posted by PalynkaScience has to start out with absence of knowledge, for instance, when phythaggy figured out a^2 + b^2 =c^2, there was zero knowledge of that and his insight lead to an absolute truth in that context.
I'm just pointing out people's contradictions when it comes to economics.
Before you considered it a crucial experiment and when it was pointed out to you that economics does the exact same thing it suddenly became doubtful. Coincidence? Right.
You're probably an engineer, right? Engineers often fail to realize that theory leads testing and is a crucia ...[text shortened]... s. Sciences go from approximation to approximation, not from absence of knowledge to truth.
As science is now, we have gone through a lot of zero knowledge states and arrive at half truths along the way so the approximation to approximation thing is middle game in science IMO.
08 May 10
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you recall, my very first post was hopeful but healthily skeptical of the scientific validity of the process as a whole (both the simulation and the proposed future experiment):
I'm just pointing out people's contradictions when it comes to economics.
Before you considered it a crucial experiment and when it was pointed out to you that economics does the exact same thing it suddenly became doubtful. Coincidence? Right.
You're probably an engineer, right? Engineers often fail to realize that theory leads testing and is a crucia ...[text shortened]... s. Sciences go from approximation to approximation, not from absence of knowledge to truth.
I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. Admittedly, sociology is always a bit sketchy when it comes to hard facts, but this computer simulation is just the first step in the study which will eventually involve 36 human test subjects. I think the simulation is enough to show that moral behaviour can be more highly influenced by a neighbourhood-like subset of a population than by the moral behaviour of population as a whole. Hopefully the actual live testing will shed some light on whether or not this actually is the case. I think once that stage is complete your question will be a valid and important one.
As you can see, my skepticism was present from the very beginning. At no point did I prejudice my opinion based on the occupation of the researchers. In my second post, I clarified that the process should be considered as a whole before deciding whether the article describes a scientific activity or not:
It's not valid now because you are criticizing a small part of the scientific process for not being scientific. Wait until the process is complete. The scientists haven't made any claim (at least no claims that were reported in the article) that this simulation is the experiment which validates or invalidates their hypothesis. It is merely a tool to discern whether or not the hypothesis is viable. As noted in the final paragraph of the article, the actual experiment is yet to come:
"Now, with this game theory simulation showing that moral behavior evolves from individual interactions, Helbing and his team are building a lab that might be able to test how the theory might work with actual people. They want 36 test subjects who can interact, and help determine how cooperative and moral behaviors arise, and whether people behave as the statistical physics say they will."
From a practical standpoint, how do expect the scientists to get funding for the real experiment without demonstrating that the hypothesis at least has merit?
As you can see, I'm well aware of the importance of theory in the scientific process, including simulations that precede experiments. As you can also see, at no point did I claim that "being scientific" is the same as being "the truth" (whatever that means, exactly), nor did I claim that knowledge can't be revised through further scientific discoveries. In my third post, I alluded to the immense difficulty of running a well-controlled experiment in economics:
I think where this differs is that the physicists in the article ran a simulation with the intention of following up the simulation with a controlled experiment. The nature of economics is such that controlled experiments are often very difficult (if not impossible) to run. This is not a small point. You can model and observe real-life outcomes for comparison until the cows come home, but unless the experiment is well-controlled it is extremely difficult to get a sense of how accurate the prediction is and what factors are fundamental to the theory. The economic reality in most cases is simply too complex to break it down into manageable, well-controlled parts (probably due to the fact that human behaviour plays a fundamental role in economics). Economic study is vitally important in today's world, but its predictions will never have the same certainty as those from, say, the law of gravity.
For the record, string theorists take a lot of flack (and rightly so) for thinking up marvelous ways the universe could be composed, but for making predictions which are impossible to test (as of yet, anyway).
As you can see, I also alluded to the fact that economists aren't the only ones subject to scientific scrutiny. Despite being physicists, string theorists are often criticized as being pseudo-scientists since many of their predictions can't be tested even in theory. In my last post, I tried to clarify the criteria for scientific study:
Here's the description of the future experiment they gave in the article:
"They want 36 test subjects who can interact, and help determine how cooperative and moral behaviors arise, and whether people behave as the statistical physics say they will."
I have to admit, the description isn't adequate to determine whether or not the experiment is well-designed. But if it is, then it's science. If it's not, then it isn't science. The key will be whether the experiment is well-controlled, which will in turn lead to it being reproducible and falsifiable. I'm sure you know of some economic experiments that meet these criteria, and I'm sure you know many more that don't. The ones that do are scientific, the ones that don't aren't scientific. Simple.
As you can see, I clearly admitted the possibility of a scientific economic experiment, and at no point did I claim that an experiment run by a physicist is scientific based solely on the occupation of the researcher.
You're probably an economist who's miffed that someone said you weren't scientist, right? Grow up.
08 May 10
Originally posted by PBE6So when you said:
If you recall, my very first post was hopeful but healthily skeptical of the scientific validity of the process as a whole (both the simulation and the proposed future experiment):
[quote]I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. Admittedly, sociology is always a bit sketchy when it comes to hard facts, but this computer simulation is just the first step in the ...[text shortened]... s miffed that someone said you weren't scientist, right? Grow up.
I think where this differs is that the physicists in the article ran a simulation with the intention of following up the simulation with a controlled experiment.
You didn't really mean that economics is different?
And you didn't really mean that the theory is scientific or not based on some "intention" of doing a controlled experiment?
LOL, keep your cognitive dissonance.
08 May 10
Originally posted by sonhouseJebus, you come up with mathematics to talk about science? Mathematical statements are true or false depending on the axioms you're building them on and so it's proofs follow from pure logical deduction and not empirical testing.
Science has to start out with absence of knowledge, for instance, when phythaggy figured out a^2 + b^2 =c^2, there was zero knowledge of that and his insight lead to an absolute truth in that context.
As science is now, we have gone through a lot of zero knowledge states and arrive at half truths along the way so the approximation to approximation thing is middle game in science IMO.
And I don't even know what you mean by Pythagoras started with "zero" knowledge.