Category Archives: Science and the scientific method

Philip Pilkington: Confessions of a Non-Utilitarian Shopper

By Philip Pilkington, a journalist and writer living in Dublin, Ireland

Store clerk in transsexual shop: “Oh, look who’s back… are you going to buy something this time, or are you just curious?”

Tobias Funke: “Well, I guess you could say that I’m buy-curious!”

– Tobias Funke, Arrested Development

Mitch Hurwitz, the creator of Arrested Development – possibly the best comedy show ever produced for television – once said that the funniest things about people are their blind spots. We all possess these psychological blind spots and yet we usually have no idea. Caught up in our own little worlds we see or hear one thing while just about everyone else sees or hears something else. Just like poor, confused Tobias Funke – except, hopefully, in most instances a little less extreme.

New Zealand Science Minister Wayne Mapp Endorses Dubious “Miracle Cure” Multi-Level Marketing Company

My last pop at New Zealand’s regulatory set-up mentioned New Image International, the company that uses multi-level marketing techniques to sell Colostrum as a miracle cure. The New Image product pitch is a generic hoax, as explained last time out:

…major warning signs include:
Read more...

Economists Defending the Use of Models

I found this video by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, in which a number of prominent economists discussing the use of models, more than a bit frustrating, with Jamie Galbraith’s comments at the very end a notable exception.

Mainstream fetishizes the use of models.

Economics Debunked: Chapter Two for Sixth Graders

Readers gave high marks to Andrew Dittmer’s summary of a dense but very important paper by Claudio Borio and Piti Disyatat of the BIS and asked if he could produce more of the same.

While Andrew, a recent PhD in mathematics, has assigned himself some truly unpleasant tasks, like reading every bank lobbying document he could get his hands on to see what their defenses of their privileged role amounted to, he has yet to produce any output from these endeavors that are ready for public consumption.

However, I thought readers might enjoy one of Andrew’s older works.

David Graeber: On the Invention of Money – Notes on Sex, Adventure, Monomaniacal Sociopathy and the True Function of Economics

A Reply to Robert Murphy’s ‘Have Anthropologists Overturned Menger?

By David Graeber, who currently holds the position of Reader in Social Anthropology at Goldsmiths University London. Prior to this he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University. He is the author of ‘Debt: The First 5,000 Years’ which is available from Amazon

Last week, Robert F. Murphy published a piece on the webpage of the Von Mises Institute responding to some points I made in a recent interview on Naked Capitalism, where I mentioned that the standard economic accounts of the emergence of money from barter appears to be wildly wrong. Since this contradicted a position taken by one of the gods of the Austrian pantheon, the 19th century economist Carl Menger, Murphy apparently felt honor-bound to respond.

In a way, Murphy’s essay barely merits response. In the interview I’m simply referring to arguments made in my book, ‘Debt: The First 5000 Years’. In his response, Murphy didn’t even consult the book; in fact he later admitted he was responding at least in part not even to the interview but to an inaccurate summary of my position someone had made in another blog!

We are not, in other words, dealing with a work of scholarship. However, in the blogsphere, the quality or even intention of an argument often doesn’t matter. I have to assume Murphy was aware that all he had to do was to write something—anything really—and claim it rebutted me, and the piece would be instantly snatched up by a right-wing echo chamber, mirrored on half a dozen websites and that followers of those websites would then dutifully begin appearing across the web declaring to everyone willing to listen that my work had been rebutted. The fact that I instantly appeared on the Von Mises web page to offer a detailed response, and that Murphy has since effectively conceded, writing an elaborate climb-down saying that he had no intention to cast doubt on my argument as a whole at all, only to note that I had not definitively disproved Menger’s, has done nothing to change this. Indeed, on both US and UK Amazon, I have seen fans of Austrian economics appear to inform potential buyers that I am an economic ignoramus whose work has been entirely discredited.

I am posting this more detailed version of my reply not just to set the record straight, but because the whole question of the origins of money raises other interesting questions—not least, why any modern economist would get so worked up about the question

Study Asserts World’s Stocks Controlled by “Select Few” (Bad Studies That Confirm Conventional Wisdom Refuse to Die Edition)

Wow, there is nothing like searching through your archives for an anecdote you want to recycle only to discover that the post you used it in pre-debunked the very same paper that you are now girding up to debunk.

A whole bunch of readers sent me either links to a paper “The Network for Global Control” by physicists Stefania Vitale, Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder, or to reports on it (for instance, at PhysOrg, which I put on a black list because it has embarrassed me too many times before readers by reporting reverently on dubious studies). I pre-debunked a report on an earlier version of this paper, as reported in Inside Science, by Battiston and Glattfelder.

Let’s look at a breathless summary per PhysOrg:

Cash Flow Discounting Leads to “Astronomically” Large Mistakes Over the Long Term

Your humble blogger is a vocal opponent of placing undue faith in single metrics and methodologies, like placing a lot of weight in total cholesterol as a measure of heart disease risk. One of the most troubling examples is the totemic status of discounted cash flow based analyses. It’s a weird defect of human wiring that reducing a story about the future to a spreadsheet and then discounting the resulting cash flows (which means you are now layering a second story, about what you think reasonable investment returns will be over that time period) is treated as having a solidity and weight that simply is not there, a reality of its own that manages to take precedence over the murky future it is meant to help understand.

An article by physicist Marc Buchanan in Bloomberg gives a layperson’s summary of an important paper by Yale economist John Geanakoplos, and Doyne Farmer, a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute. It shows that the conventional use of discounted cash flow models over long time periods, as is often the case when discussing environmental impacts, is fatally flawed.

Scott Sumner Puts Foot in Mouth and Chews

Reader Valissa has taken to providing economist jokes in comments, but the members of the discipline so often seem eager to make themselves the object of ridicule that efforts like hers sometimes seem redundant.

The latest sighting is a remark by Scott Sumner, a professor of economics at Bentley University. As

How Algorithms Shape Our World

I don’t know about you, but I’m suffering from debt ceiling/Eurozone mess fatigue and thought readers might enjoy a wee respite. This engaging presentation by Kevin Slavin provides some useful food for thought about how the use of algorithms are coming to literally reshape our world.

“A Dramatic Demonstration of the Power of Mental Frames”

This demonstration by Simon Singh is an intriguing little exercise of sorts. Hat tip Richard Smith:

Jon Rynn: A Fracking Mess – Natural Gas is Not the Fuel of the Future

By Jon Rynn, author of the book Manufacturing Green Prosperity: The power to rebuild the American middle class. He holds a Ph.D. in political science and is a Visiting Scholar at the CUNY Institute for Urban Systems. Cross posted from New Deal 2.0.

Between questionable science, health hazards, and exorbitant costs, there’s no fracking way that drilling for natural gas will solve our long-term energy issues.

Dubious Research: The More Debt Students Have, The Higher Their Self Esteem

It’s a sign of the times that your humble blogger is having to create finely stratified typologies for the various types of ~~propaganda~~ dubious research being deployed to promote the idea that rule by our new financial overlords, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary, really is for our own good.

We’ve already instituted the Frederic Mishkin Iceland Prize for Intellectual Integrity for special-interest-group- favoring PR masquerading as research.

However, Mishkin is a Respected Personage, and the initial Mishkin Iceland Prize recipients, Charles Calomiris, Eric Higgins, and Joe Mason, presumably knew they were writing utter bunk and were handsomely compensated for attaching their names to less than credible arguments. That suggests we need a separate category for the more mundane, bread-and-butter shilldom that is dressed up to look like serious academic work. Let’s call it the Lobsters Really Want to be Your Dinner Prize.