classical economics is not a science

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This contains a great critique of classical economics.

"The classical theorists gradually adopted the math and some of the terminology of science. Unfortunately, however, they were unable to incorporate into economics the basic self-correcting methodology that is science’s defining characteristic. Economic theory required no falsifiable hypotheses and demanded no repeatable controlled experiments. Economists began to think of themselves as scientists, while in fact their discipline remained a branch of moral philosophy—as it largely does to this day."

Fortunately, there are people out there prepared to criticise the absurd assumptions of classical economics and keen to develop their own theories through the application of scientific principles.


Another couple of great quotes from this interview:

"More troubling still is the assumption free-market economics makes about nature: that we don't need it. Because everything is theoretically substitutable for everything else, when we run out of nature, we'll just substitute technology. That, says [Joshua] Farley, is a religious belief, not a scientific one."

"In ecology, if your theory is not supported by real life, you change your theory. In economics, if your theory is not supported by real life, you try to come up with policy measures that change real life to make it a closer fit to your theory."

viva voce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've got my PhD viva tomorrow. I'm going through my thesis and feel really sorry for the examiners because I can't write concisely or clearly for toffee. Regular visitors to punkscience will be aware of this and I apologise for it. Its just not something I've ever really aspired to and it really shows in my work. That's not to say I'm not a good scientist. I am. I'm fucking awesome! I can communicate my work very eloquently and clearly- just not in the formal written style that all science is documented in.

This is a problem I need to address because being a good scientist these days is simply not going to get you a job. You have to be a self-publicist and prolifically so in all sorts of media- not just peer-reviewed journals. I don't approve of this. There are so many examples of boundaries being smashed apart as a result of people ignoring this paradigm and concentrating on research instead of wanking their egos that I can't begin to motivate myself to 'play the game.'

Anyway, instead of wasting time writing badly here I'm going to go back to pondering the bad writing in my thesis. I will leave you with some relevant ponderings from Dr Jim. Who is awesome.

state of the planet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a powerful article from Nature to kick-start a decade of science-led world-saving. The diagram reproduced below shows nine planetary systems: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading. Safe thresholds for each system are indicated by the green ring and the current state of each system is illustrated by the size of the red wedge. As you can see, we have already exceeded the safe thresholds for biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and climate change.


So there you have it: A concise and heavily evidenced review of the state of the planet in one of the most prestigious journals. Everyone should have to read this. Ignorance is a crime.

excellent blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Its called Information Is Beautiful.

Check it out.

it always amuses me how "thesis" sounds so similar to "faeces"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here it is, kids. The whole chibang:

the essence of manliness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Its testosterone, of course. A paper covered in New Scientist found reduced levels in fathers and in older Senegalese men and higher levels in men with multiple wives. The conclusion was that fatherhood lowers levels. There's an interesting circle of casue and effect here that they might have got the wrong way round. Testosterone is associated with dominance in men (pdf), as anyone who has been threatened with a slap by a two metre wide bouncer knows. Could it be that the domestic servitude of diligent and conscientious fatherhood stifles our inherent manliness in a manner akin to the subordinate life of an omega-male and quenching release of the man-essence? (No sperm-related puns, please).


Addition 02-09-09:

Female gorillas imitate oestrus and engage in copulation when pregnant in order to obstruct fertile competitors mating with them.

animal experimentation - do crabs have rights?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No" says Peter Fraser of the University of Aberdeen. So do I and would also like people who say they do to not be so fucking stupid. This sort of "rights creep" is a direct threat to much high quality research that makes use of the lack of authoritarian oversight of invertebrate experiments to do good and interesting science.

Put it this way: If I wanted to manipulate an organism's environment in the lab to test its responses to some stressor (eg. ocean acidification) I could do so with invertebrates (eg. crabs, mussels) without any bureaucratic oversight. The same experiment with vertebrate fish would require a home office licensed facility; a separate licence to be approved for the specific experiment; qualified and registered staff to conduct husbandry, sacrifice the animals and take biological sample and piles more bureaucratic fiff-faff. Now, I'm not saying that animal welfare is not a concern for scientists. I'm saying that some of the legislation designed to produce it is unnecessary and obstructive, costs an enormous amount of money and does not necessarily improve the welfare of the animals as no-one can explain in cold, hard terms exactly what this term means. Animals in the wild are typically perpetually hunted, starved and otherwise stressed to fuck. Putting fish in sterile tanks with no natural features whatsoever is kind of like locking your average human indefinitely in a single room with nice, soft, padded walls and providing them with regular meals but nothing else. And about as humane. Scientifically its absolute bollocks.

Unfortunately the alternative- called mesocosm experiments, where you try to replicate natural communites of organisms in a recreation of their natural habitat- is incredibly complicated and generally produces very complicated results that are difficult to interpret. Also, such experiments are an order of magnitude more space-, resource- and labour-intensive due to the need to study all of the different components of the community in sufficient detail to observe statistically robust differences. I fail to see how this is anything more than a challenge to scientists, however, as the underlying rationale for such experiments and the potential for real insight to be gained from them is clear. Resort to single species tests in sterile, unrealistic conditions is defeatist and cowardly. Unfortuantely the regulations for conducting such tests with vertebrates make mesocosm studies including them almost impossible to conduct robustly.

check out the new widget

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like my new widget on the left? You can get it too from here.

Sourced from the awesome power of the Data Not Shown blog.

"According to classical economics, financial crises don't happen – clearly, then, there is a lot wrong with classical economics."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brilliant article from New Scientist, titled: "Can science reinvent the economy?". Its subscription only so if you require access I will happily share a copy. Email me at punkscience at gmail.com.

NI Environment Minister is a climate change denialist!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Punkscience calls for Sammy Wilson MP to be sacked on account of his ignorance. The little fuckstick can't even understand why his views are a problem.

"Why should I resign? I fulfil all my ministerial obligations in all areas of my department, and the idea that I should resign just because I hold a different view from other people on what is a very controversial topic is nonsense. And it just shows the intolerance of these people if they think I should resign because I have a different opinion."

In other news, Thabo Mbeki's health policies based on his belief that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus, is thought to have been the direct cause of 300,000 deaths due to his rejection of offers of funding and free antiretroviral drugs.

So just what is the difference between Mbeki's incompetence and Wilson's? Both result in mass deaths of innocents.

Madeleine Bunting is a delusional bint

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AC Grayling just got another body blow in on a god-bothering apologist. This idiot claimed that Christianity had done wonders for science. AC Grayling disagreed profoundly.

I was distracted by his concluding broadside to the bint:

"It happens that we have the technology to make everyone "happy", as if this were by itself the great aim of things: put Prozac in the public water supply. One reason for not doing so is that norms of fulfilment and flourishing in human life rest on such richer possibilities now than when the sun went round the earth and you could be burned to death for not believing that it did."

And I recall the quality of life surveys you read about how people were happier 30 years ago than they were now. I am also brought back to a point I have frequently considered which is: "What is the goal of civilisation?"

Is it the happiness of its citizens?

Maybe it is the pursuit of knowledge.

I will ponder this awhile.


Addition:

An SSRI like Prozac is not a very good drug for "making everyone happy". I advocate ecstasy.