For John, BLUF: Be careful of experts. Nothing to see here; just move along.
In another forum I have been following a discussion on experts and how they feel rejected by mere laymen and laywomen. Here is a Fisking of an item in defense of experts, by blogger T. Greer. The original item was written by Mr Tom Nichols, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College (just down the street, in Newport, RI). Poor Professor Nichols.
We need experts and for structurally complex problems—like flying an airplane—the interactions are fairly predictable and experts generally agree on what works best. And, we trust the experts. Few in Row 7, Seat C wish to get up and move into the pilot's seat.
In interactively complex problems (wicked problems, as some might say up here), the various parts/players have very large degrees of freedom. The interactions are inherently unpredictable (economics, climate change, family dynamics, peace negotiations, etc). One of the characteristics of wicked problems is that experts will fundamentally and strongly disagree with each other. Yes, I know that some believe climate change (or Keynesian Economics) is settle science, but there are reasons to have doubts, and some smart people do. Not everyone accepts John Maynard Keynes as having been correct.
I am reminded by all this of the quote from the Baron Rothschild, back in the 1800s:
There are three principal ways to lose money: wine, women, and engineers. While the first two are more pleasant, the third is by far the more certain.These are more egalitarian times, so the first two may be called into question by some, but might we replace engineers with "experts"?
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
Economics makes predictions. Climate science makes predictions (granted that they are sets of probabilities rather than certainties). Economics I'll grant isn't a science the same way physics is, but climate science is science. And more to the point, nobody need 'accept' anyone's assertion, but rather accept or discount the evidence and/or its relationship to the assertion. The idea of independent verification is at the very heart of science, which is why all scientific claims are provisional until proven false.
Why isn't economics science. Shouldn't it be following laws? I have a lot of faith in the law of supply and demand. Big demand, small supply, price goes up. Doesn't it?
Regards — Cliff
I didn't say it isn't science - I said it isn't science in the same way as physics. This is because when you try to verify an economic theory in the data, you're always left with the caveat that you're dealing with the randomness in human nature, which is embedded in economics. This is why the rational-actor theory looks good on paper but comes up short in the data. Economics as with any science is field that comes up with models that we compare with reality to gauge their accuracy and usefulness. The models of economics are much less deterministic than models of physics.
I note that some time ago I remember hearing on the radio a chair of an economics department somewhere notable (I wish I could remember) who indicated he didn't think of economics (and psychology incidentally) were hard sciences and were more sciences of pet theories.
This pet theory issue actually creates problems in the field too. When a physicist finds out their theory is wrong they are usually pleased because they learned something and it has implications for future inquiries. Pet theories are often reinterpreted rather than undergo hard revision.
Whereas climate sciences *is* physics.
Post a Comment