Potpourri
* At the risk of giving students to my “competitors,” I draw your attention to the current offerings at the Mises Academy. Some new and interesting stuff. Oh to be a young student in 2012 was divine!
* The Teacher’s Manual to my textbook Lessons for the Young Economist is now available.
* Some neat clips from a Feynman lecture on the scientific method. What’s funny is, if we didn’t have reasons for thinking science “worked,” Feynman would sound like a really pushy charlatan. I mean, just listen to what he’s saying: We can never know we’re right, we can only be proven wrong, we might think we’re right for a hundred years but really we’re wrong the whole time, the currently accepted principles are contradictory, and…don’t even bother criticizing what we’re doing unless you have a better idea. In just about any other field of human activity, such a person would be dismissed as a jerk and a crank, and yet Feynman is (correctly) adored by these students. It’s just very interesting. (LET ME AVOID A LANDSBURG: I AM *NOT* CRITICIZING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HERE. I am observing that if you didn’t know anything else about it, on the surface it sounds like these scientists don’t have much to offer the rest of humanity.)
* The episode where I was on John Stossel’s program.
* Tom Woods guest hosted the Peter Schiff show and had me on. Tom in the beginning of the show lavishes praise on me such that I blushed (just now when hearing it), and the caller that gets through when I’m on the air was similarly dangerous for my already inflated self-esteem. I realized that just like Rush Limbaugh would often have Walter Williams guest-host, who in turn would have Thomas Sowell on for a commercial break or two, in an analogous fashion Schiff-Woods-me.
Good head’s up. I didn’t even realize Walter Block was about to start a class.
So you didn’t blush when you were on the phone with Tom?
Was there risk of self-esteem hyperinflation?
What Feynman is saying there sounds like critical rationalism and has been, as far as I know, the standard approach to science for many decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science
I don’t understand what makes him sound like a charlatan to you. But maybe that’s just because I am too familiar with Popper’s views. Anyway, to me, this is the most honest and humble attitude a scientist can possibly have – so pretty much the opposite of everything I’d consider a charlatan. 😉
So….Popperism is optimal and non-crankish because it’s been the status quo, it’s familiar to you, and it’s the most honest (does that mean other methods are being advanced by dishonest liars? Or do you mean honest in the sense of presupposing your own conclusion that this method is the right one and all other methods are wrong and hence not “true” to the one reality that Popperism fulfils?), and it’s (allegedly) the most humble (since when is humbleness a virtue? Maybe for slaves, but why everyone?)
I hope you will at least admit that Popperism is anything but humble. It is making very strong judgments on the capability, efficacy, and hence the nature (reality) of the human mind itself. To stand against the human mind being capable of performing a particular talent, is to stand for the human mind being of a particular constitution that is not hypothetical, not humble, and not conjectural.
I don’t think I have made the implications you are trying to associate with me. So, as for your first paragraph the answer would be ‘No, it is not’.
As for your second paragraph, I have never looked at Popper that way and, to be honest, I don’t quite understand. When did Popper say that you are incapable of performing something? Verifiability is not restricted by your mind but by logic.
PS: Humbleness seems to have various connotation some of which I do in fact consider a virtue, others not. Of course, I do not advocate submissiveness, but modesty.
Major,
“Popperism” has been mostly rejected (rightly or wrongly) in the philosophy of science for some time now.
Rightly, JTR. The refutations are quite decisive.
Tell that to Christopher. I wasn’t making an endorsement.
“Popperism is optimal and non-crankish because it’s been the status quo…”
Funny, because in professional philosophy of science circles, “Poppersim” is dead, dead, dead… I studied philosophy of science *at the department that Popper founded*, and there was not a single Popperian left there.
Right, bear in mind that this comment was just me trying to understand what Christopher said. It wasn’t an endorsement.
At any rate, Popper’s major principles are the most widely adopted principles for practitioners. Falsifiability, testability, etc. Most scientists and economists still utilize this methodology in their practise. That’s how every single one of my former economics profs went about their work.
Thanks for that. All I was trying to say was that I didn’t understand why Dr. Murphy thought these video clips were worth mentioning. Because, as you said, they are anything but new or surprising.
Whether you favor critical rationalism or not is a different story. I do like it to a certain extent, you apparently do not. Fair enough.
All I was trying to say was that I didn’t understand why Dr. Murphy thought these video clips were worth mentioning.
To inspire discussion. It apparently succeeded.
Whether you favor critical rationalism or not is a different story. I do like it to a certain extent, you apparently do not.
The main reason I don’t like Popperism is that it leads invariably to skepticism. There really isn’t any “falsification” going on.
Just for clarification. What do you mean by “Popperism”? Is it a synonym for Critical Rationalism?
“The main reason I don’t like Popperism is that it leads invariably to skepticism. There really isn’t any “falsification” going on.”
I guess we would need more time to really discuss this but I am going to think about that objection.
What do you mean by “Popperism”? Is it a synonym for Critical Rationalism?
Yes, except “critical rationalism” is a misnomer, kind of like how today’s “liberals” is a misnomer.
I guess we would need more time to really discuss this but I am going to think about that objection.
Once, or if, you believe you have falsified that conjecture of skepticism I made, I will just openly and honestly use Popper’s method and immunize my conjecture against criticism by saying that my conjecture wasn’t definitively disproven, because maybe I inadvertently omitted certain control variables, and that if those variables are controlled for, then my conjecture will be understood and observed.
Of course, even if I confirmed my conjecture by identifying and controlling for the right variables, and we observed how Popperism does lead to skepticism, then you can just invoke an open and honest Popperist response and say that the confirmation isn’t definitive either, because maybe we again forgot to control for certain relevant variables that if controlled for, would have lead to falsification.
And so on and so forth. Neither of us getting to any definitive conclusion, we just keep haggling and quibbling, rejecting the specific forms of our hypotheses, but never getting to the proof or disproof of “If A then B” statement I am making, i.e. “If Popperism, then skepticism.”
Not sure if you are just high-fiving MF here Gene, but to clarify: MF is just criticizing the statement, he wasn’t endorsing it.
If we didn’t have evidence science works Feynman would agree with you. Loudly.
Physicists are famously air-headed philosophers of science.
Read Ed Feser on the topic at his blog, if you’d like a representative example of what philosphers think of physicists when they try to talk about “science”. Or any philosopher of science.
And a nano-width of experience with the full breadth of science doesn’t make them particular “experts on what science is .. they work on to narrow of hair-breadth of it to say anything encompassing the wide world of your scientific experience,
What do philosophers know about science that physicists don’t?
Physicists didn’t drop any bomb, pilots did.
Most of the top physicists and directors of the Manhattan Project were Jews who either had family killed in Nazi Germany, or themselves escaped Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
I suspect a few knew what was going on, and to some degree hoped to be able to build a nuclear bomb to drop on Germany.
Machiavelli long ago discussed the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared. Philosophers have never dropped an A-Bomb on the heads of their fellow human, physicists have done. Therefore I love the philosophers and fear the physicists.
MamMoTh is right, that’s equivalent to saying philosophers massacred millions because another person holding their philosophical beliefs massacred millions.
Ask someone bicycling what they are doing to keep the bike from tipping over — they have no idea.
Physicists talking about “science” are that bicyclist.
“Physicists talking about “science” are that bicyclist.”
So physicists understand physical science but they don’t know why
they understand physical science, got it.
“Physicists are famously air-headed philosophers of science.”
My own personal experience as a physics major in college, I would disagree with this notion, although my main professor, in addition to his PhD in theoretical nuclear physics, was a schooled philosopher. But to your point, we’ve trained so rigorously within a certain discipline that is largely antithetical to a philosophical paradigm of thought. And then when we may not be juggernauts of intelligence in an antithetical discipline we’re classified as air-heads. Nice.
“So physicists understand physical science but they don’t know why
they understand physical science, got it. ”
Jason, do you really think you have somehow deflated what Greg said with this stupid remark?
No, Gene, you have done that with the remark below.
Gene, is this the kinder, gentler approach you’ve recently adopted? If so, what adjective would the old, Mean Gene have used to describe Jason’s remark?
Is this a service you offer Bob? If so sign me up! You ever see signs of a kinder gentler Ken B — sing out! It might mean I’m off my meds.
Was it a jerk remark? Probably, and perhaps unwarranted. So my apologies to Greg. It’s obvious I need to do a better job at not reciprocating your tone, Gene. At least we’re learning here 🙂
So physicists understand physical science but they don’t know why they understand physical science, got it.
It’s rather this:
Physicists are doing physical science, but they by and large don’t know why or how it works.
My own personal experience as a physics major in college, I would disagree with this notion, although my main professor, in addition to his PhD in theoretical nuclear physics, was a schooled philosopher.
Schooled philosopher in what? By the way, personal anecdotes are not valid evidence for this particular issue.
But to your point, we’ve trained so rigorously within a certain discipline that is largely antithetical to a philosophical paradigm of thought. And then when we may not be juggernauts of intelligence in an antithetical discipline we’re classified as air-heads. Nice.
Not air-heads. Air-heads in the philosophy of science. You do see the difference, don’t you?
This is funny, and not because you are off base with any of your remarks, but because before I posted what I did I actually came up with the exact same line of questioning to my own comments as you did, MF. I knew someone would bust me on the personalization, and could parse the “air-head” comment. Although your first statement isn’t any different that what I posited. At least I suppose were on the same wavelength here.
“Physicists are famously air-headed philosophers of science.”
As opposed to what? Economists? That was a good one.
Maybe if economists thought about philosophy of science the way physicists do, they wouldn’t be repeating the same old discussions over and over again for 100 years now. The boring “the stimulus didn’t work” – “without the stimulus it would be even worse” argument is precisely due to the lack of useful scientific methodology. I am not aware of any physicists having this kind of problem.
If only economists spent time developing a scientific methodology to understand human action we’d really have something.
Very difficult for macro-economists to re-run a controlled experiment by winding back time, making a small adjustment and trying a few alternatives.
I was being sarcastic.
“As opposed to what? Economists?”
No, Christopher, as opposed to philosophers.
Bob,
Nicely done on Stossel. Calm, well reasoned. The going non-academic part worked really well. One little criticism: the $200 stock vs. the $100 stock. The price of the stock is not a measure at all of whether it’s a dog because you can have a lower-price stock with a stock split and it can be a really good stock.
Thanks David! (See, I can refrain from making jokes if I try really hard…) They actually edited the segment a lot; I think I was even more “down to earth” in the original, but I understand why they did it this way.
As far as your criticism, I’m not totally getting it. You’re right, the price of a stock per se means nothing; I could buy a stock for $1 and it goes to $10 (meaning it’s great to buy) or I could buy a stock at $1000 and it goes to $1 (meaning I shouldn’t have bought it).
I might not have said it correctly on the fly, but what I was getting at is that in equilibrium, you want the stock price to reflect the PDV of future net income divided by the number of shares. So if stock XYZ right now has a price of $200 but stock ABC has a price of $100, if I’m a generic investor with no inside info, I’m hoping that means company XYZ is going to earn enough income so that I get a flow of dividends (or future price appreciation in the stock price) that has a PDV right now of $200, while ABC only needs to generate half that amount.
Does that make sense?
Sure, that makes sense. And I know YOU knew it. I think it will come across to some in the audience, though, that the $100 is a dog and the $200 isn’t.