Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#61

Post by js8 »

chakkop wrote: post #8

I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes? I think that would be such a boring world. The real equality that matters is equality in dignity as human beings, equality before the law, equality in our respect to each other. I think the developed world has made monumental strides on these fronts, which are spreading around the world too. (Even though, of course,…

> I'm curious - does anyone else think that the equality that matters is equality in material outcomes?

You should not forget that inequality is not only about material outcomes. It is also about power to decide economic matters, such as how capital is invested. Shouldn't these matters be decided more equally by all members in society?

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#62

Post by beefield »

berntb wrote: post #56
beefield wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know nothing about palaeontology. Can you give an example of unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology? Yes, classical physics is a simplification, but it is a _falsifiable_ simplification, unlike the utility maximizer. Note that falsifiability has nothing to do with making experiments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper". Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others? (I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.) Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link t…

To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_.

You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists.

My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable?

(Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#63

Post by berntb »

beefield wrote: post #62
berntb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper". Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others? (I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.) Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link t…

To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_. You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists. My hypot…

It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper.

(Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.)

Enough for me, bye.

Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#64

Post by pandaman »

berntb wrote: post #49
beefield wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory. Now, maybe the mos…

Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either? This is an honest question. (And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)

"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability).

Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#65

Post by berntb »

pandaman wrote: post #64
berntb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either? This is an honest question. (And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)

"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability). Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species…

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point.

(The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.)

"Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end:

Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page.

...

Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#66

Post by pandaman »

berntb wrote: post #65
pandaman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability). Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species…

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in…

Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#67

Post by posterboy »

jamesblonde wrote: post #50
posterboy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, money is immaterial. Your argument, as poignant as it may be, doesn't follow.

Money is immaterial?!? As Homer Simpson once said (to his brain): "money can be exchanged for goods and services" - like healthcare, education, important stuff....

> immaterial

> 1. Having no matter or substance.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immaterial

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#68

Post by berntb »

pandaman wrote: post #66
berntb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in…

Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?

So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?

The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?

This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:

"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."

Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...

I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.

Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#69

Post by berntb »

pandaman wrote: post #66
berntb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in…

Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?

Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.

I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.

I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.

If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Re: ‘No Empirical Evidence’ for Thomas Piketty’s Inequality Theory

#70

Post by pandaman »

berntb wrote: post #68
pandaman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?

So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc? The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this? This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about: "Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on…

Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.
Post reply on HN