[ExI] Inflation graph

[Mark Walker]

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:17 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> <snip>
> > (I was thinking of mentioning Giffen goods and similar complications in
> my
> > quick post, but felt that it would detract from the point. "Prediction"
> is a
> > loaded word in the philosophy of science, and comes in many kinds and
> > qualities.
> >
> > But supply-demand is a rather solid prediction approach.)
> >
>
> Only if you exclude externalities.
>
> i.e. in theory the prediction works, in practice it mostly doesn't.
> (And when it does appear to work, it is only for a short time).
>
> Economics desperately wants to be called a 'science'. But their
> theories only work in their ivory towers. Look at the economic mess
> the real world is in now and all the arguing economists. Pick any
> economic theory you like, and I guarantee there is an opposing
> economic theory. Economics is a contradictory shambles.
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

All sciences predict only to the extent that they idealize and add ceteris
paribus clauses. Example: Newtonianism and General Relativity predict that
if I let go of this ball it will hit the ground. But then I "falsify" the
theories by grabbing the ball with my other hand as it heads towards the
ground. Well, the prediction is supposed to be understood with an "other
things being equal" or some other ceteris paribus clause ("unless acted
upon by some other force".... being perhaps the most famous). We notice
these ceteris paribus clauses and idealizations more in economics and other
social sciences, but they are there in every science.

Ironically, the more science gives us mastery over nature, the less
predictable nature becomes. Anthropocentric effects, for example, have to
be factored into climatology. Nasa is predicting a  lunar eclipse on Dec.
9, 2030, at 22:28.51 for the greatest eclipse. I haven't done the
calculations but I bet if humanity put all its resources into it, we could
make a big enough nuclear blast or series of blasts on the moon to thwart
this prediction by a few minutes. So, even astronomy has to invoke ceteris
paribus clauses. As we increasingly are able to engineer celestial and nano
size objects, more and more of the "hard" science predictions will either
fail or have to idealize away from intelligent interventions. In other
words, I'm predicting a convergence in the predictive abilities of the
natural and social sciences over the long term.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131130/78df5170/attachment.html>