Paul Krugman, the Brian Williams of Economics Bloggers

I explain at Mises CA. The best part of the post is this meme I created:

Science versus Religion?

Gene Callahan points us to a man who is clearly not a scientific thinker, at least according to the criteria deployed by today’s rhetorical guardians of reason and knowledge. According to Wikipedia, this man used the Bible to make predictions about future events. He spent a great deal of time studying the dimensions and other properties of Solomon’s Temple (using the Bible’s first book of Kings as his chief source, which he translated himself from Hebrew), thinking they contained secrets to the universe, and in his own book on the subject he explained: “This philosophy, both speculative and active, is not only to be found in the volume of nature, but also in the sacred scriptures, as in Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and others. In the knowledge of this philosophy, God made Solomon the greatest philosopher in the world.”

Furthermore, this man wrote a great deal on the proper way to approach Biblical prophecy, wanting to refute clearly erroneous interpretations which (when falsified by events) would discredit the enterprise of learning objective truths about the natural world–and predicting future historical events–from reading the scriptures.

So who is this nutjob, who doesn’t understand the way empirical science works? Why it’s Isaac Newton, arguably the most important and greatest scientist in human history.

Tom Woods on DUI Checkpoints

Tom’s guest Warren Redlich talks about DUI checkpoints. Show notes here.

Think About This For a Second

We were talking about experiments concerning special relativity, and I said that an atomic clock was super accurate. My son asked what exactly that meant. This question befuddled me, because I realized I couldn’t come up with a non-arbitrary way of defining a “true” second. Wikipedia informs us:

The second (symbol: s) is the base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI)[1] and is also a unit of time in other systems of measurement (abbreviated s or sec[2]); it is the second division of the hour by sixty, the first division by 60 being the minute.[3] Between 1000 CE (when al-Biruni used seconds) and 1960 the second was defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day (that definition still applies in some astronomical and legal contexts).[4][5] Between 1960 and 1967, it was defined in terms of the period of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun in 1900,[6] but it is now defined more precisely in atomic terms. Seconds may be measured using mechanical, electric or atomic clocks.

Astronomical observations of the 19th and 20th centuries revealed that the mean solar day is slowly but measurably lengthening and the length of a tropical year is not entirely predictable either; thus the sun–earth motion is no longer considered a suitable basis for definition. With the advent of atomic clocks, it became feasible to define the second based on fundamental properties of nature. Since 1967, the second has been defined to be:

the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]

In 1997, the CIPM affirmed that the preceding definition “refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.”

I encourage you to really think through the philosophical implications of the above. Obviously, humans initially adopted units of time based on convenience and the regularity of planetary events. But you can see how humans refined the very definition of units of time, over the centuries. I’m having a hard time putting into words just how mind-blowing that is. It’s not analogous, say, to refining the measurement of the charge on an electron. But it’s also not analogous to deciding that “bad” can mean “good” if used by gang members.

Something like this happens in economics and libertarian political philosophy, where the original practitioners start out with a concept, and then over time it is refined to better get at the spirit of the original concept, even though it no longer directly corresponds to the original concept. For example, how indifference curves replaced cardinal utility in the work of Pareto (if I’m remembering my Hicks correctly).

Anti-Conspiracy Theorist Article Unwittingly Trolls Itself

The headline of a recent RawStory article declares:

Facebook conspiracy theorists fooled by even the most obvious anti-science trolling: study

…and features this charming image:

Some strong words and a picture, no? Let’s see what this ballyhooed study found. According to the article:

A team of Italian and American researchers tested the social media biases feeding belief in conspiracy theories such as chemtrails, shape-shifting reptilian overlords, and the Illuminati, reported Motherboard.

The researchers found that adherents to conspiracy theories are highly receptive to claims that support their views and rarely engage with social media pages that question their beliefs.

…

The researchers examined social media patterns for 1.2 million Facebook users and found that nearly 92 percent of those who engage with Italian conspiracy theory pages interact almost exclusively with conspiracy theory pages.

The study also found that conspiracy theory posts are much more likely to be shared and liked by Facebook users.

The researchers then tested the strength of these users’ biases by posting “troll information” – or sarcastic comments parodying anti-science views – on Facebook.

“These posts are clearly unsubstantiated claims, like the undisclosed news that infinite energy has been finally discovered, or that a new lamp made of actinides (e.g. plutonium and uranium) might solve problems of energy gathering with less impact on the environment, or that the chemical analysis revealed that chemtrails contains sildenafil citratum (the active ingredient of Viagra),” the researchers said.

They found that 78 percent of those who “liked” these 4,709 troll posts interacted primarily with conspiracy theory pages, as were 81 percent of those who commented on them.

Let me be the first to say, “Duh.”

You could replace “conspiracy theory” with any other strongly held view and I’m sure you would get a similar showing. For example, it would probably work with “evangelical Christianity” but also “veganism,” “Marxism,” and “zero population growth.”

Would these researchers then be shocked to discover that people who liked pro-environmentalist comments–even if so over-the-top that the person “couldn’t possibly” be serious–also primarily interacted with environmental pages on Facebook?

I almost think that this article is itself a test, to catch all the people who hate conspiracy theorists and get them to share this article without thinking through how dumb it is.

Remember kids: To theorize that 19 guys conspired in secret for years, planning an incredible operation to kill thousands of people and bring down the World Trade Center, is not a conspiracy theory. But any other explanation is, and is thus self-evidently absurd. What kind of nutjob doesn’t believe the standard government story for major historical events that shape domestic and foreign policies?

P.S. No, I’m not suggesting that Dick Cheney personally laid explosives on 9/10/01. But the fact that I have to even put in this disclaimer shows what a great job the establishment has done, in making the term “conspiracy theory” so radioactive. You almost get the sense that They did it On Purpose.

Unemployment Benefits: The Government Gets What It Pays For

My latest article at FEE. An excerpt:

Just about everyone agrees that incentives affect behavior, but economists really mean it. That’s because economists take the logic of incentives further than most other people are willing to. Such analysis often reveals that government policies have unintended consequences that seem shocking to the average person. The list includes welfare programs that lead to higher rates of birth out of wedlock, seatbelt laws that lead to more pedestrian deaths, and even the possibility of changes in estate taxation that lead to people strategically timing their deaths.

But perhaps one of the most perverse distortions comes from unemployment benefits. Economists argue that these can provide an incentive for people simply not to work. Indeed, a new NBER working paper by Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii, and Kurt Mitman estimates that the abrupt end of unemployment benefit extensions led to 1.8 million additional new US jobs created in 2014.

The theory here is straightforward: when the government subsidizes an activity, other things equal, people will engage in more of it.

 

Potpourri

==> His resolve weakens: Scott Sumner admits that there is a non-trivial chance that my monetary views are correct.

==> The media are going nuts over the revelation that one of the leading climate change “deniers” failed to disclose his funding from fossil fuel companies, because obviously this should lead us to doubt his objectivity. In related news, the head of the IPCC (and joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore) resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment. In his resignation letter, Pachauri reportedly said, “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” But this BBC article on the story doesn’t even mention that. Instead the news story bleeds into a (labeled) “Analysis” from its environmental expert who writes:

Dr Pachauri’s resignation is a shock – but it is unlikely to create lasting damage to the IPCC as he was due to retire, and potential replacements are already throwing hats in the ring.

Good luck to them: the IPCC chair is one of the most gruelling and controversial jobs on the international stage.

The chair has to spend much of his life in mid-air, flitting between capitals, whilst suffering relentless attacks from campaigners challenging climate science.

I’m glad to see that the alleged dichotomy between science and religion has evaporated!

==> I’m probably not going to address the male/female wage gap stuff, because I don’t have too much to say that others won’t have already (by the time my article would be posted). If you’re curious, though, here’s Daniel Kuehn’s contrarian take, just to see how anybody could possibly reject the standard libertarian view on this stuff.

The Union of Concerned Scientists Explains Their Problems With “Intelligent Design”

In my previous post, people in the comments invoked the No True Atheist defense, saying that I was wrong to claim that many professional biologists, when addressing the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, made sweeping statements that rule out even alien designers. Well, here is the official statement on ID from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I’m not editing out anything, below are some of the bullet points exactly as they present them on their webpage, and in particular its “Section 4: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science”:

Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

• There is scientific controversy over evolution: There is no debate about evolution among the vast majority of scientists, and no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

• Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of “irreducible complexity”¹]:  Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.

• Intelligent design is a scientific theory²: A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

• Intelligent design is based on the scientific method³: Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations⁴.

• Most scientists are atheists⁵ and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.

They don’t even bring up God until the last bullet point. There is no qualification in the earlier bullet points about their remarks being limited to a supernatural intelligent designer. They flat-out say that “the existence of an ‘intelligent’ agent can not be tested.” This is such a ridiculous claim that it would be laugh-out loud funny in any field except biology. For example, if one archeologist says that the pyramids were designed by an intelligent architect, imagine a chorus of others saying, “The existence of an ‘intelligent’ architect can not be tested, so drop your unscientific hypothesis please and stick to explaining how earthquakes and sandstorms formed this thing.”

Last thing: A lot of people (including those who edited my Wikipedia account) publicly claim, with confidence, that I “deny evolution” or am a “creationist.” My actual views on this topic are quite nuanced. Mostly what I have done in my public remarks on this stuff is point out the huge problems in the smug “scientific” handling of these matters, with people saying self-evidently absurd things like “the existence of an ‘intelligent’ designer is unscientific” or “the theory of macroevolution is as well-established as the theory of gravity.”