The non-science permeating the field of economics

Most economists failed to predict the market crash of 2008--so many that it is hard to count them all. But how is this even possible? It's on a scale of this hypothetical: 98% of  meteorologists failing to predict a huge hurricane hitting the coast of Florida.  Consider this description of the problem:

Like everyone else, we wondered how could the world's leading economy and its top economists, including the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke - a man who is surrounded by a network of smartest investors, scientists, and think tanks - miss the financial crisis and its impact on the US Economy?

The predictive failures by economists causes a friend of mine to argue that, as a general rule, economists are not scientists at all, and that they are "frauds."  In my opinion, he's overstating the point because there were some economists who clearly predicted the burst of the housing bubble, but most of the economists who take to the airwaves don't seem to be scientists like the scientists who develop vaccines or design solar panels. They are often terrible at making predictions, and their lapses can look cataclysmic in retrospect.  They are like sportscasters, always looking forward to the next game, trying hard to divert attention from their previous failures. They seem more like lawyers or PR specialists than scientists.  This article at Wharton suggests that the economists who failed to predict the housing bubble lack "common sense":

Continue ReadingThe non-science permeating the field of economics

Climate Denial Meltdown

As we seem to be discussing conspiracy theories here lately, let's take a look at Climate-gate, the oft repeated Fox News banner of climate change denialism. This video is a good and detailed look at not only the emergence and initial rallying cry of Climate-gate, but also how a thoroughly disproved lie emerges again later as a new rallying cry. It is a pity that this video does not even bother to go into the criminal activity used to gather the misleading information. The forces of anti-reason are tireless, and this is just one of many subjects in which it manifests.

Continue ReadingClimate Denial Meltdown

Creating Doubt in Science

There is currently a strong suite of Discovery Institute bills running through state legislatures to allow "alternative theories" to be taught in science classes. See list here: Antievolution Legislation Scorecard. There is not a direct link back to the Discovery Institute, but it is their wording, seen before and passed in places like Texas and Louisiana and Tennessee. From a legal standpoint, the bills look harmless, closely resembling intellectual freedom policies. But the point is clearly to sow confusion about the difference between science and just making things up, especially in regard to evolution and climate science. Hemant Mehta suggests that it would only be fair to show this video in churches where the churches put their books into science classes.

Continue ReadingCreating Doubt in Science

The non-science offered by the new atheists

This article is a continuation of my previous post analyzing Installments I – IV of David Sloan Wilson's series of articles titled "Atheism As a Stealth Religion" (Here is Installment I). This article relates to D. S. Wilson’s installments V through VIII. In Installment IV, D. S. Wilson presented six major hypothesis that have been used as plausible evolutionary explanations for religion. In installment V of his eight-part series of articles on atheism as a stealth religion, he indicates that religion is "a fuzzy set," and that each of the six hypotheses he previously offered seem to bear on at least some aspect of religion. The only way to pick and choose which hypotheses truly work is to employ the scientific method, strictly speaking. That is the approach D. S. Wilson has claimed to have done in showing that the super organism hypothesis is more relevant and persuasive than the others.

If you could say only one thing about religion, it would be this: most enduring religions have what Emile Durkheim called 'secular utility.' They define, motivate and coordinate groups to achieve collective goals in this life. They promote cooperation within the group and bristle with defenses against the all-important problem of cheating.… [T]hey score high on practical realism, no matter how much they depart from factual realism along the way.

Wilson argues that the "byproduct" and "individualistic" accounts of religion can be fully reconciled with the superorganism hypothesis. For instance, the byproduct approach often includes the concept of a "hyperactive agency detection device (HADD)" that refers to our over willingness to explain events in terms of actions of "intentional human-like agents." To the extent it exists, such a tendency could have come into existence about for reasons having nothing to do with religion. As such, HADD could well be a byproduct (or an exaptation) that currently contributes to our groupish tendencies. D. S. Wilson's argument reminds me of the concept of "ontological metaphors" offered by Lakoff and Johnson. At bottom, human animals quite often demand intuitive explanatory models for understanding causation with regard to complex phenomena, and a prime method of portraying causation is through some sort of sentient agency. Since there is no evidence of such sentient agency, it becomes a logical move for a motivated individual to argue for a supernatural version of sentient causal power. What are the consequences of accepting the superorganism hypothesis? By choosing among the hypotheses, we can better devise strategies for dealing with religion. Organisms and super organisms "compete, prey upon each other, coexist without interacting and engage in mutualistic interactions." In these ways, superorganisms can be seen to be a special type of secular system akin to governments and business corporations. Religious organizations are not exceptions to the rule on how one conceives of and deals with organizational systems. Religions are, rather, merely one type of organizational system. Granted, they are notable to the extent that they "depart so flagrantly from factual realism," but they are, at bottom, "corporate units." Because they are essentially corporate units, we should expect that they behave comparably to other corporate units with regard to such things as competition and predation. D. S. Wilson notes that he has done quite a bit of research in this area, and is convinced that

[T]he majority religions… Originated and spread in a non--violent fashion--think of early Christianity and current versions such as Seventh-day Adventist him. I am not claiming that religious groups are biased toward pacifism, only that they are like secular groups in employing the full range of options in their interactions with other groups.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe non-science offered by the new atheists

Excellent websites present the basics of evolution and the scientific method

The University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education have offered an excellent remedy to the increasingly vocal anti-science chorus one hears in the United States. This remedy is a website called "Understanding Evolution." The site is a link-rich resource for both teachers and for the general public. From the About page:

Understanding Evolution is a non-commercial, education website, teaching the science and history of evolutionary biology. This site is here to help you understand what evolution is, how it works, how it factors into your life, how research in evolutionary biology is performed, and how ideas in this area have changed over time.
Consider these pages to get you started: "What is the evidence for evolution" and "Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation." And why stop at evolution while you're in the learning mood? Why not also explore the scientific method at a related site titled "Understanding Science." As was the case with "Understanding Evolution," "Understand Science" was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation. Here's an excerpt from the About page:
The mission of Understanding Science is to provide a fun, accessible, and free resource that accurately communicates what science is and how it really works. The process of science is exciting, but standard explanations often miss its dynamic nature. Science affects us all everyday, but people often feel cut off from science. Science is an intensely human endeavor, but many portrayals gloss over the passion, curiosity, and even rivalries and pitfalls that characterize all human ventures. Understanding Science gives users an inside look at the general principles, methods, and motivations that underlie all of science.
At this site, you'll find answers to such questions as "What is science?" and "Why science matters." At this site, readers can also access information "correcting misconceptions" about science and teachers have access to numerous resources. [caption id="attachment_16827" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Zabiello at dreamstime (with permission)"][/caption] Both of these sites are both well-written and well-designed. You might want to keep these links handy for those increasingly frequent occasions when you hear evolution-ignorant and science-ignorant folks spout off the that the earth is 6,000 years old or that "evolution claims that people came from monkeys."

Continue ReadingExcellent websites present the basics of evolution and the scientific method