Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

There is honor and service to society in inventing and building companies and products that make life better for people, which should be justly rewarded. There is honor in architecting balanced financial regulation, to which we should dedicate careful attention. There is honor for the important financial sector when it functions as it should for the collective good, and this too should also be justly rewarded. Reasoned risk-taking by knowledgeable investors plays an important role in capital markets in providing support for initially risk innovations. But there is no honor in abusing our regulatory and financial systems for reckless speculation (i.e. gambling) that has no productive value for our collective future and that of the generations who will follow.

Nonetheless, blame will not get us out of this situation. We need to understand how and why the crisis happened and why warnings over the last years were not understood or heeded. We need to use this knowledge to stop this crisis and get the economy functioning again. In the longer term, we need to redesign and reregulate the financial system so that it performs its necessary functions without leading to periodic crises of global scale.

Continued...
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/brown08/brown08_index.html

This is by far the best description of the process behind the creation of prosperity I have read to date.

We are too centred upon the idea of business being ephemeral and too complex to be understood by any low brow. As a consequence, we lose sight of the fact that most of this process has to be entirely the provence of the majority. The challenge is not to describe the process in terms we can understand, but in terms that anyone can.

[santafe2]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

SF,

I'm sorry, but I don't get where you derive this view from.

Democracy is not about agreement, it is about the majority shoving its view down on the minority.

Yikes! I often agree with you but this is nonsense. Does the majority "shove... its view down on the minority". Here's another example, it turns out that 97% of climatologists think there is global warming. These are the people trained to take a long term view of our climate. This seems simple to me but under your construct, they're "shoving" their view on the other 3%. It's not science, it's majority shoving.

My take-away from your post is that both democracy and science are shovers....just a bunch of bullies. I'm not sure that's your point so you may want to restate it.

[TRake]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

Look into the success of Bayesian networks in diagnosis, or the use of wave mechanics in modeling traffic. Critique the misapplication of math rather than the general use thereof.

Truth. Ego mixed with a bit of theory is a dangerous thing.

The problem with most mathematicians and scientists these days is that they are focused on solving a specific problem and they fail to take a step back and see what they have really created. Einstein did this with the Manhattan project. After the fact, when he finally looked at what he was responsible for, he was ashamed of himself.

I have most benefited from my studies in philosophy combined with my degree in mathematics. Philosophy allows me to judge whether or not I have included all variables necessary to correctly solve a certain problem, and then to determine if the outcome is good or bad.

Aristotle's first lesson as written by Plato is that in order to learn something, one must first be able to admit that they don't know.

TRake

[TRake]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

I will put some rave since this talk reminds me some work I am doing

How the "science" work in complex matters:

You want to predict weather but do not have computers to model (ex. not invented yet). But you have a yard of frogs and noted how they changed the behavior depending on future weather. So you can start to create complex equations, correlations, recording their voices, measure their grow, movements etc. So this will be looking very "scientific".

- Does it make better predictions then just guessing ? More likely yes
- Is it right model ? No
- Is it science ? No, because you understand frogs do not impact the weather so you should search real strong relationship in the nature where you have object and subject.
But if you do not have this "laws" or they are to complex to account or measure you still use frogs as your best tool.

Economic is not a rocket since, it is too complex and involves human. We can make right models and know some laws but in small pieces only.

We do not have good tools to describe economic. Look on the development of math: a big part of this development are tools and methods. Example: Can you work with physical laws without complex numbers: yes you can, but this will be more complex environment and some things will be difficult to infer. We have zillions of different domains in algebra.

We do not have good tools to describe economic. Look on the development of math: a big part of this development are tools and methods. Example: Can you work with physical laws without complex numbers: yes you can, but this will be more complex environment and some things will be difficult to infer. We have zillions of different domains in algebra.

VIT,

Algebra does not fully cover math problems involving human beings and psychology. I would suggest studying chaos mathematics and fractal geometry.


TRake

[TRake]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

Using fractal geometry and the construction of our economic and financial system I come up with the following:

US (world) markets, mainly due to credit and debt policies, lead to
f(x)=e^x until "recessions" occur where some gain is lost.

I say US=world because the US has the most influence and the world likes what has happened in the US over the past 200 years and would like the same for themselves. Also, US credit and debt has corrupted most other markets and commodities are valued in USD.

When the plan fails leading to a collapse the graph will change, but I don't think it will be f(x)=-(e^x). That graph would make sense, but not at first due to government intervention. I know it wouldn't be f(x)=-x.

I think there would come a peak after many repeated f(x)=X1^X2 repetitions where X1 is the average inflation rate of the time span and X2 is the number of years in that environment. The peak would be somewhere at the end of the X1=30 case, representing an inflation average of 30% per year. I am guessing that this 30% would be more than the world could handle. At this point, I think that the US government would like to be in a position where the world is ready to move to one world currency. This would allow for the US to be at its peak and would freeze the world situation with the US in its best possible position. I say freeze the world situation because when we move to one world currency we must have a model that works, not the model that is used today. There is also one "reset" allowed when the Amero comes along.......



The above thoughts are not something I have read. This is my own conclusion based on my studying of the markets and the US govt. and its policies and what I think they think would be best for them because that is how people really are. I don't read much of what people of today write. I am seeking the truth and I refuse to be lead astray by others thoughts.

TRake

[labasta]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

Logic routinely leads to absurdity and paradoxes, perhaps because the assumption and axioms we begin with are not wholly true, and logic leads us to identify their incongruities.

I believe that's where imagination comes into play. Truth might not be definite. Imagination may be needed to expand it.

the hydrogen molecule is a stable system and the indistinguishable particle 'exchange' contribution to the energy integral

That's all well and good, but have you seen the atom? Can you replicate the atom on a larger scale and produced "magic"?

If you make a bad assumption and use that as the basis for logical reasoning, you will come up with a conclusion that is 'true' within the context of your faulty axioms, but untrue in reality.

It appears then that logic is fine for closed systems. But what system is really 100% closed? It looks like curiosity, imagination and playfulness may be needed to break thorugh the closed system and discover another entirely new one within which logic can again be used. I think inventors do a good job with this as they cast the old reasoning out the window in order just to "see what happens" or "I wonder what would happen if I did this" or "it says here in this textbook that this is so... is it really.. let's see if I can break this rule". Occassionally, I think this kind of thinking opens up a whole new world. There's a touch of the arty side of the brain about them as well as the engineering side.

Theoretical physists are probably the worst at this as they may be locked into the presently known system of logic. I might be wrong though. There are probably some mavericks, but I always seem to think that crowd are the "can't be done because of this rule" crowd, rather than the "we'll see if that's true" crowd.


I'm of the belief that we are nowhere near to discovering all the layers of the system. An example is atoms. We understand the relationships between them pretty well, but what are they? What do they look like? Why are the relationships as they are? What is really "moving" them? How can I bridge the gap between their relationships and what I am? When I look at my hand, what is my hand really?


Ash, I'll read your marvelous 22 cents when I have a bit more time later on.

Beware though, I'm not a maths person, so every time I see an equation I run for the hills.

[c1ue]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

Yikes! I often agree with you but this is nonsense. Does the majority "shove... its view down on the minority". Here's another example, it turns out that 97% of climatologists think there is global warming. These are the people trained to take a long term view of our climate. This seems simple to me but under your construct, they're "shoving" their view on the other 3%. It's not science, it's majority shoving.

My take-away from your post is that both democracy and science are shovers....just a bunch of bullies. I'm not sure that's your point so you may want to restate it.

SF,

Please provide your evidence for this 97% number - I am curious at to its provenance.

In any case, certainly if science is based on a common desire to learn as opposed to implement some funding or political agenda, then science is about sharing, understanding and learning - but still not about consensus except in the sense of arriving at the same space. In my view, consensus and right/wrong are on different axes.

Lastly as for democracy: the entire point of democracy is that the individual's desires as expressed in their vote is 'binned' into various groupings of less and less granularity until sufficient votes are obtained to spur official action.

In this case, there is absolutely nothing to do with right/wrong, nor with learning, rather it is about sinking to the lowest common denominator such that the most desired action is obtained. That's why we have political parties as well as minimum levels of majority.

Why is there then any difference between a 20% granular view - with more votes than any other individual 'bin' - and a 51% view? Because over time 'parties' must evolve as the smarter leaders realize that with a sinking to a lower common denominator, that greater majorities can be obtained.

The principle - again for me - is identical to Adam Smith's invisible hand: For a democracy it is about the lowest common denominator among the individuals to spur governmental action. For competing firms providing the same service/product, it is about the winning firm providing the most popular product.

From an optimist's/idealist's point of view - democracy encompasses the majority view and the good of all. But clearly this is not true if the majority desires short term benefits even if the result is long term harm.

Similarly from an optimist's/idealist's point of view - capitalism creates the best product for the best price due to competition. But Adam Smith didn't really consider the longer term implications: a capitalist firm can win in many ways beyond having the best product at the best price. There is regulatory capture. There is monopoly. There is oligopoly/collusion. There is fraud. etc etc.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

SF,

Please provide your evidence for this 97% number - I am curious at to its provenance.

In any case, certainly if science is based on a common desire to learn as opposed to implement some funding or political agenda, then science is about sharing, understanding and learning - but still not about consensus except in the sense of arriving at the same space. In my view, consensus and right/wrong are on different axes.

I enjoy your well thought out postings C1ue, but I also enjoy playing devils advocate.

Interesting that you would ask SF to hunt down a consensus number, and then say it would be meaningless to you anyway. I'm sure SF has enough work to do without wasting his time providing data that you say you will certainly reject.;)

If scientific consensus should not be used as the determinant of what is the acceptable science of the day, then what should be? What method would you use to fill the scientific text books of our high school classes?

[c1ue]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

If scientific consensus should not be used as the determinant of what is the acceptable science of the day, then what should be? What method would you use to fill the scientific text books of our high school classes?

I am always interested to see where these numbers come from, because so many of them ultimately emanate from the IPCC report - which ultimately is a moebius circle assertion.

But my curiosity as to another source of information doesn't detract from my existing view.

As for what to fill scientific textbooks: How about the facts?

Fact 1): Evolution is a theory. The preponderance of evidence is for it and continues to be after seven decades, but both the basic theory itself and its actual functioning continue to be explored. It is NOT dogma.

Creationist theory is VERY young and should not be given any more credence than any other crackpot 5 or 10 year old theory, but neither is it automatically false.

Fact 2): Climatology as it practiced today is no more than 15 years old. There weren't computers powerful enough to even consider modeling global climate before then.

What we have now is the early product of an nascent field of study. Global warming seems to likely, but MAN MADE global warming is NOT proven nor even conclusive.

But as a stalking horse for effecting political or economic advantage, it is wonderful because it is both plausible and impossible to disprove. Because it is equally impossible to prove.

Yet somehow we are supposed to drop everything an enact tremendous societal wide changes to try and affect something which may be an issue in 50 years? It would seem the burden of proof lies more with those requiring the action than otherwise: that there is a need, that these proposed actions will fix the problem, and that these proposed actions must be enacted now.

Reducing waste and energy use? fine goal. I myself would have a fairly low profile were it not for my jetting around the world. But there are plenty of good reasons to do this without resorting to draconian government mandate.

For that matter we have longer term weather prediction theories: the Farmer's Almanac

They're saying global cooling coming? True or not? no idea.

But the timeline put up is very interesting:

http://www.almanac.com/timeline/

[we_are_toast]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

I am always interested to see where these numbers come from, because so many of them ultimately emanate from the IPCC report - which ultimately is a moebius circle assertion.

But my curiosity as to another source of information doesn't detract from my existing view.

As for what to fill scientific textbooks: How about the facts?

Fact 1): Evolution is a theory. The preponderance of evidence is for it and continues to be after seven decades, but both the basic theory itself and its actual functioning continue to be explored. It is NOT dogma.

Creationist theory is VERY young and should not be given any more credence than any other crackpot 5 or 10 year old theory, but neither is it automatically false.

Fact 2): Climatology as it practiced today is no more than 15 years old. There weren't computers powerful enough to even consider modeling global climate before then.

What we have now is the early product of an nascent field of study. Global warming seems to likely, but MAN MADE global warming is NOT proven nor even conclusive.

But as a stalking horse for effecting political or economic advantage, it is wonderful because it is both plausible and impossible to disprove. Because it is equally impossible to prove.

Yet somehow we are supposed to drop everything an enact tremendous societal wide changes to try and affect something which may be an issue in 50 years? It would seem the burden of proof lies more with those requiring the action than otherwise: that there is a need, that these proposed actions will fix the problem, and that these proposed actions must be enacted now.

Reducing waste and energy use? fine goal. I myself would have a fairly low profile were it not for my jetting around the world. But there are plenty of good reasons to do this without resorting to draconian government mandate.

For that matter we have longer term weather prediction theories: the Farmer's Almanac

They're saying global cooling coming? True or not? no idea.

But the timeline put up is very interesting:

http://www.almanac.com/timeline/

Interesting that you would put creationism (I'm assuming you mean the christian creationist myth and not the many other religious creation myths), and the Farmers Almanac in our kids science books. But I'm not asking "what" you would put in, I'm asking "how you would determine" what should go in. Are you simply "the decider"?

[santafe2]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

SF,

Please provide your evidence for this 97% number - I am curious at to its provenance.

Thanks for the follow-up c1ue. I should have found the original paper and included the reference when I sited it. The assertion is from a recently published, peer reviewed study.

Report:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2...9-01-20-02.asp

Original Article:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

In any case, certainly if science is based on a common desire to learn as opposed to implement some funding or political agenda, then science is about sharing, understanding and learning - but still not about consensus except in the sense of arriving at the same space. In my view, consensus and right/wrong are on different axes.

Let me offer an example. There is wide consensus that the force we call gravity will cause objects with mass to be attracted to each other. We use that knowledge to make other wide ranging assumptions. The scientific consensus on this point is 100%. Among the general public it's likely less than this.

As the article above points out, there is great consensus among climatologists as to the likely cause of global warming. The public however is split almost evenly on the issue. The public has no consensus because their sources of information are politically driven. The public is apparently wrong in their lack of consensus....but I suppose they may have "axes" to grind....

Similarly from an optimist's/idealist's point of view - capitalism creates the best product for the best price due to competition. But Adam Smith didn't really consider the longer term implications: a capitalist firm can win in many ways beyond having the best product at the best price. There is regulatory capture. There is monopoly. There is oligopoly/collusion. There is fraud. etc etc.

Your argument, at least in part, is confusing correlation with causation. Capitalism in the US has been gamed, rigged more in the last 30 years than should have been allowed but, for me, that is not an argument against capitalism.

[santafe2]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

I enjoy your well thought out postings C1ue, but I also enjoy playing devils advocate.

Interesting that you would ask SF to hunt down a consensus number, and then say it would be meaningless to you anyway. I'm sure SF has enough work to do without wasting his time providing data that you say you will certainly reject.;)

If scientific consensus should not be used as the determinant of what is the acceptable science of the day, then what should be? What method would you use to fill the scientific text books of our high school classes?

A couple of observations:

• iTulip has high standards. I read and post here because this community is smart and challenging. When I, or anyone else for that matter, site a specific study, the primary reference should always be included.
• When I respond to a post, it's not my goal to convince my counter party that my POV is correct. Rather it is to state my case so I and the original poster, can better understand how other members of the iTulip community see the issue. We're not likely to change each other's minds a great deal but we will hone our ideas through community debate.

[c1ue]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

SF,

Thanks for the link.

I'm always interested to see more data.

The report has some very interesting details:

1) The questions asked:

a)

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

b)

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

2) The respondents are overwhelmingly American and Canadian

Where is the rest of the world? And why is the one nation spearheading the anti-Kyoto movement the home of so many MMGW'ers?

Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.

This last part brings up another interesting question. Was Climate Science even something you could get a PhD in 20 years ago? And how many were minted?

And how many Climate Science PhDs are working in departments that weren't funded/didn't exist 20 years ago? That might be an interesting juxtaposition of personal gain vs. objectivity.

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.

3146*0.9 = 2831 climate science PhDs.

To put this in perspective: http://www.ade.org/facts/placement/placement.htm

When data collection for the 2000–01 survey began in October 2001, the MLA identified 572 PhD-granting departments in its database of departmental administrators—514 departments in United States and 58 in Canadian universities.

Of the 536 departments that responded to the 2000–01 survey, 165 were classified as English programs, 321 as foreign language programs, 44 as comparative literature, and 6 as interdisciplinary (meaning that they reported graduates in both English and foreign languages); 456 of these departments reported granting at least one PhD degree in the period 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001. Departments responding to the 2000–01 study reported a total of 2,327 PhD recipients.

So climate science now apparently is rivalling English departments as a job venue?! And yet there can be no conflict of interest? Think of it - an entire new department for wayward underemployed 'soft' majors? :0

3) The survey is apparently primarily for those specializing in 'climate science'. Now my understanding is that climatology and meteorology are two different fields of expertise (study of and prediction of climate, respectively), yet somehow climate science encompasses both. Certainly I can see how this would be read as being 'experts' expressing their opinion, but equally I wonder if the survey's audience and its subject is like surveying Federal Reserve governors as to the benefits of a central bank.

In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

It is interesting that there is such tremendous agreement among those 'peer reviewed publishers'. With such a consensus I should expect tenth degree accuracy in predictions?

Similarly those who study meteorology - i.e. prediction of weather - seem to have a quite different view vs. the climate science-ers:

The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

Not sure what economic geology is. Maybe this is intended to represent all the flat earthers?

[santafe2]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

Not sure what economic geology is. Maybe this is intended to represent all the flat earthers?

Economic geologists are people who want to get as much value from earth based elements as possible. Get a PhD and drill baby drill. What's wrong with the 47% that said warming was human caused? They must be in the wrong profession.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Can Science Help Solve the Economic Crisis?

It is interesting that there is such tremendous agreement among those 'peer reviewed publishers'. With such a consensus I should expect tenth degree accuracy in predictions?

Similarly those who study meteorology - i.e. prediction of weather - seem to have a quite different view vs. the climate science-ers:

You need to have lived here in the UK for the last sixty years. Rainfall is up year on year by more than 25%. We used to get really hard winters from time to time, but now, take this year for an example, we had a bit of snow before year end which all of us came to believe signalled we might get another. But now, only mid January and we are into strong winds and heavy rain, "April showers".

Take my word for it or not, simply living here in the UK tells all of us that we are much warmer than when we were children.

As for Canada. They have, apart from Russia, the longest coastline adjacent to the Arctic Circle and have a long record, going back to WW2, of keeping a close watch on the Arctic weather, so there is no difficulty in understanding why they seem to be at the forefront of the ongoing debate on the state of that region.

For the time being, any ice melting is already afloat, but it will not be long before the next phase starts, the rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets. Once that starts we will see rapidly rising sea levels and then the debate will be over.