Dave ... If I understood you correctly, you just made a good point! It was in your first sentence, "one can win every argument if one judiciously picks only those facts that fit one's arguments".
I've been meaning to point out a couple of things about scientific reasoning, as contrasted with the kind of reasoning that usually goes on in public political discourse.
1) In science, researchers gather a *large, random sample* before drawing any empirical inferences. For instance, in social science, a survey will typically have 400-1000 people, and they will take care to select them randomly, including people from different ethnicities, social classes, and so on.
In contrast, in popular political arguments, ideologues typically rely on samples of 1 or 2, and they are intentionally selected by the writer to support a particular point.
2) In science, researchers look for *simple, objective* criteria, criteria that are minimally subject to judgment or interpretation, for testing a hypothesis.
In popular political discourse, debaters typically rely on subjective, speculative criteria that are open to judgment calls and multiple interpretations.
Example:
Trying to test Keynesian economic theory by looking at the period from the Great Depression through 1960. From a scientific standpoint, how many things are wrong with this?
1. Small number of data points.
2. All data drawn from a single country in a relatively circumscribed time period.
3. Judgment call as to whether and how much FDR applied Keynesian theory. Keynes himself criticized FDR for not doing it right.
4. (Perhaps redundant with 3:) Failure to control for multiple other, non-Keynesian policies. For instance, the price controls introduced by FDR, which obviously are not part of Keynes' theory.
5. Failure to control for monetary policy. Since the government pursued monetary expansion and fiscal expansion at the same time, it is unclear how one would distinguish the effects of the two policies from one another.
6. Judgment call as to what the metrics of economic performance are. Unemployment? Inflation/deflation? The stock market? GDP growth rate? The existence of multiple possible metrics enables an author to pick whichever one appears to support his argument better.
7. Speculation as to where those indicators "should have" been, or would have been, in the "default" scenario in which no Keynesian policy was pursued.
8. Judgment call as to what that default scenario would have been -- a strictly monetarist approach? An Austrian economist's approach? Complete anarchy?
9. Speculation/judgment call as to when an effect should have been expected to occur. 3 months after the first stimulus measures are started? 3 years after? 5 years after the largest measures?
10. Judgment call as to what counts as a sufficient improvement to support the theory. A 1% rise in the economic index (whatever it is) being used? 20%? What if it goes down, then up, then down, then up again?
11. Failure to control for any other factors whatsoever that might affect the economy.
This isn't an isolated example. The sort of "empirical arguments" usually made in popular political discourse are normally worthless and unscientific in just the same way. By arguing in the usual manner that people use, it is possible to come up with virtually any conclusion on any issue, by just adjusting the many available parameters until one gets the conclusion one wants.
Forum > a thoughtful comment on conservativism's faults in fighting Recession and possible Depression from a fellow Conservative:
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (10:52AM)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (12:07PM)
Owl, I completely agree with your thoughts on scientific reasoning vs public "populist" whim.
However, scientific reasoning & theory is usually accompanied by real, physical experiment incorporating a concisely controlled set of input that best recreates the real world theory it was conceived on. Einstein was at first scoffed by the "populist" majority of his industry in his day. Einsteins theory was tested in real world New Mesico at a safe distance so as to not cause harm, it proved to be correct in relation to the massive quantity of energy stored in the smallest amount of matter....which led to vindication for many other components to his theory beyond just nuclear reaction alone. This alone led to the safe assumption that all else Einstein had theorized was true as well, that relativity worked on any level. Some of his theory actually contradicted Newtons laws once we got into the more cosmic range, but it didn't mean Newton was wrong, he just didn't have as many variables in mind, nor as many resources. Then came quantum mechanics, where Einsteins theory could no longer explain some of the more fundamental physical proportionates of the universe....namely the lack of gravity vs the other forces like weak & strong nuclear or electromagnetic within the universe. The reason is that Einsteins theory covered a known set of variables, once new variables were introduced in relation to an entirely new physical subject that had previously been assumed Einsteins theory would explain, it became apparent Einstein had only unlocked the next door just like Newton had before him, but he had not explained "everything". Einsteins theory explained matter and it's properties in relation to space, time and energy down to the atomic level...but once it got into teven more fundamental particles, his theory no longer worked. Assumptions had been made that his theory of relativity would work because he was the most advanced mind on the topic to that point, a single thing like nuclear fission & fusion gave weight to the thinking that his theories were perfection for all things real....the "rock star" of the industry at the time. He'd never have conjured an 11 membrane theory, it doesn't mean he was inadequate, but in the same way Newton advanced physics to the next level, Einstein played his part, and then Hawking. None of them were wrong, they just didn't have the variables for the next level of advancement and the usual "rock star" hype gave each of them slightly more credibility than they ought have had. That's my thinking on strict adherence to advanced economic theory at a time of unprecedented variables being introduced to our economy, not to annoy you, but Eccles said it best when he compared the increasing credit dept in conjunction with stagnant incomes and increasing wealth of a diminishing minority of the population....now add never before seen levels of globalization and I'm not seeing a very pretty picture from where I stand, years down the road yes, but for the oncoming years if we hadn't incorporate4d fiscal stimulus into the game, we'd see hunger and poverty atop an increased dependency on credit for the basic staples like food or clean water....good for corporate profits though. CEO's making ten times what they made 30 years ago, in conjunction with median wages growing slower than the GDP they work to create during the identical time period, as well as the irrefutably massive increase in consumer credit and marked drop in savings...the bulk of the credit is mostly mortgage credit, that's not frivolous spending, it's credit being used to purchase staples. Krugman is brilliant, a team of Scandinavian geniuses seem to agree on this, but I suspect he only opened the door to an entirely new topic....he discovered basic laws of global economics, but we need Einstein to step in real quick, because we didn'yt think to try this out in a distant New Mexico desert first. For starters, the note that our economy will adjust is obviously correct, but one of the variables I think may not be focused on enough is time, The amount of time it will take for American industries to adapt to global supply/demand isn't just going to occur in six months, it may not occur in five years with the current levels of corporate special interest intervention to preserve profits as "big government" attempts to speed up the process...and the rate we're losing jobs is much, much faster than we can afford to simply rely on a thoery for blind faith in. We never tested this bomb in New Mexico, we just started signing foreign trade agreements in droves under the assumption that theory is correct, much the same way banking executives laid convenient faith in a "quant" equation that told them what they wanted to believe, despite constant warnings. I'm seriously wondering of now isn't a good time to consider moving out of New Mexico. |
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (12:21PM)
You are right that, Ireland is hurting, But ask the question, is Ireland better off now than it was before it lowered taxes? its an undeniable yes. Now I agree they took an extreme jump in their tax policy, so it will be volatile while things settle. But Ireland went from one of the poorest in Europe to one of the most important economic forces in europe, based on their deregulation and tax policy. I'd say its worked wonders for them in terms of long term growth! Just my humble opinion :) |
|
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (03:21PM)
thanks, Owl, for a compliment, of course that's what I meant: eye of the beholder designing a argument to suit his bias. Green Glasses for visitors to the Emerald City. Now, TK should make green shades for those of us who have lot's of red on the gain/loss page.
However, politics is an art, not a science. And even with science, interpretation (or just ignoring the evidence) is nearly everything. And Funding can influence what gets investigated and what doesn't. One of the problems I see with conservatives is that they keep bringing up the Kennedy Administration as an example where tax cuts work. You suggested that a span from the Great Depression to 1960 wasn't enough time to prove a point and yet many who argue for tax cuts mention Kennedy's stillborn era which was gone in a blink of an eye as example number one of tax cut's benefits. (I was born before then and remember and it was a little over half a term I believe although I was just a Republican kid.) If tax cuts worked then why is it no one gives Clinton's tax increases as a basis of the longest modern non recessionary growth after tax increases through most of the '90s? Clinton's increase in funding communities and social agencies, esp. police depts. employed millions more people in good works and helped increase probably the best bull market in our live spans. Like Obama, I think Clinton was too much an appeaser of the opposition and he paid heavily for that in encouraging talk show hosts to spout rhetoric like the violence of Oklahoma City et al, anti abortion murders and bombings and then the wasteful sexual investigations into his well-known philandering that seemed not to be a factor in governing. (Personally, I never liked the guy, ol' trousersnake Bill, but the economy did well under him, relatively, as I think his mild tax increases worked! But Rush Limbaugh made his fortune claiming they were the largest tax increases in history.. ignoring the hugh tax increase on working people by Alan Greenspan/Ronald Reagan/Tip O'Neal when they increased payroll taxes during the '80s) prd: " But Ireland went from one of the poorest in Europe to one of the most important economic forces in europe, based on their deregulation and tax policy." My understanding is that the smartest thing Ireland did was to join the EU which then subsidized massive improvements in Ireland's infrastructure and employment, for which money came in from the wealthier countries of the mainland, 'socialist' Germany and France mostly and still does with the propping up of the banks even now. |
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (03:43PM)
Dave, I once mentioned the success of Clinton's surplus when he left office vs Bush's failures in relation to what Obama's been left with, I was corrected that it was a result of the stock markets performance that Clinton left us so well off.
Maybe so, maybe not, but you definitely have a great point about how fats and data can be viewed with completely differing results, depending on the bias of the viewer. Mindful that I abhor taxes and foolish spending that we inevitably get taxed for, I'm just wondering how, when the GOP is warning us about "end of days" to come over the stimulus spending, we went into an 18 year bull market almost immediately after the greatest amount of spending in the history of this country. The chart speaks, and a picture is worth a thousand words. |
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (03:44PM)
you are correct. (i hate posting from wikipedia, but here is a good piece) "In the 1990s, the Republic's economic began the 'Celtic Tiger' phase. High FDI rate, a low corporate tax rate, better economic management and a new 'social partnership' approach to industrial relations together transformed the Irish economy. The European Union had contributed over €10 billion into infrastructure. By 2000 the Republic had become one of the world's wealthiest nations, unemployment was at 4% and income tax was almost half 1980s levels. During this time, the Irish economy grew by five to six percent annually, dramatically raising Irish monetary incomes to equal and eventually surpass those of many states in the rest of Western Europe." It was a mixture of both. So we are both right? haha You just caught me in the causation trap. FDI i believe is undoubtedly the most important thing to Ireland's success. -FDI wouldn't have come in nearly as quickly if they didn't join the EU and have the EU's infrastructure stabilization -FDI wouldn't have come in if taxes remained high, as is the case in Italy, Greece and Spain so I concede that argument. haha, you were right |
|
|
Posted November 03, 2009 (10:33PM)
Thank you for the pleasant discussion, PRD. I am conservative in many ways as should be everybody. You know the old fashioned meaning of it. I just have to balance out what I've seen as domineering dogmatic politics from the right wing for the last 40 years. I am about twice your age so it's a different perspective than yours.
Despite my age, I am just a child at this stock game since March or so, and I know you're doing better in investing than I am so I'll debate whether I won any argument. Conserving cash is always good. But never conserve on good humor and conviviality. And balancing trading with argument for just keeping the thinking muscle in tone isn't too bad within reason. Conserving time as it's money too. I'll have to reread Bruce Bartlett for more insight from a thoughtful leading conservative. I meant a compliment to his writing but also like to stick a little of the name calling back at 'conservatives" for what us "liberals" have suffered both financially and emotionally for the last 40 years of conservative dominance in the political sphere. But I'll leave that alone for a peaceful evening with a talk with the significant others in my life and early to bed seeking a new strategy in the next couple of weeks and some work coming up for a change. |
|
You must Log In to post to this forum.
|