QED

By -

Scott Sumner is triumphant about the April jobs number. Monetarism has apparently now been as good as proven.

Can you imagine someone from the natural sciences putting forward a claim that a rival school (in Sumner's case, Keynesians) had been entirely vanquished on the basis of similar evidence?

Biologist Will Wintner: I have empirical evidence proving the rival school of cancer cell mutation wrong! I am triumphant!

Journal Editor: Ah, so this evidence is from repeated, duplicable laboratory experiments with tight environmental controls?

BWW: Well, no...

JE: Oh, clinical trials, then, dozens of them with hundreds of cases each and well-designed control groups?

BWW: Not exactly...

JE: So what is this evidence?

BWW: Well, I'm pretty sure I saw the mutation happening the way I think it does in nature.

JE: No control group to compare to?

BWW: Nope.

JE: No scientific control of the environment?

BWW: None whatsoever.

JE: Yes, and how many times did you see this happen?

BWW: Just once.

JE facepalms.

NB: My point is not that Sumner is wrong -- I don't know --but that this is going to be really convincing only for those who are already in his camp.


Comments

  1. Bob Murphy6:04 PM

    In mild fairness to Scott, I think he is partly just using Krugman's own medicine against him. A bunch of Keynesians in the last few days were saying the current economy disproves market monetarism. So when the better-than-expected jobs number came out, I think Scott was just rubbing it in their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah6:28 PM

    Perhaps the wiley Sumner's humor was too subtle for me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more