Economists create models of the world and attempt to test those models against reality. Isn't that what makes someone a scientist?
Why do you feel economists are not scientists?
Was 'eugenics' ever an agreed-upon scientific consensus?
Eugenics was and still is part of the agreed-upon scientific consensus.
It has even had some practical success, most notably the creation of very tall athletes (including Yao Ming) and the elimination of Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews.
Eugenics is not a policy proposal, it's an engineering discipline. Eugenics is the practice of using selective breeding to cause future generations to display desired genetic traits.
So, to be more precise in my language, the scientific fact is this: eugenics can be used to alter future genotypes (with high probability) and to alter phenotypes to the extent that phenotypes are caused by genetics.
Exactly the same testing you do for climate science. Both are types of science where you get only one effective shot at predicting a given event because once an event passes you can no longer predict it.
Which is harder is hard to tell. Climate science has to deal with far more variables (current models still measure their grids in terms of miles, AFAIK) and the data is radically inferior to economic data. On the other hand, climate science does not (yet!) have to contend with people who take the predictions and actively use them to further confound the system.
(I say "yet" because if climate science becomes good enough to use it for engineering, all long-term predictions go out the window once nations start actively engineering outcomes. Note this isn't a criticism of climate science, it would in fact be strong validation, if the interventions worked as predicted. It's just that predictions predicated on the lack of intervention would no longer be valid.)
Comments
Economists are not scientists.
Economists create models of the world and attempt to test those models against reality. Isn't that what makes someone a scientist?
Why do you feel economists are not scientists?
Was 'eugenics' ever an agreed-upon scientific consensus?
Eugenics was and still is part of the agreed-upon scientific consensus.
It has even had some practical success, most notably the creation of very tall athletes (including Yao Ming) and the elimination of Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews.
> Eugenics was and still is part of the agreed-upon scientific consensus.
WTF? Eugenics is a policy proposal, not a fact. How could it possibly be part of the scientific consensus?
Eugenics is not a policy proposal, it's an engineering discipline. Eugenics is the practice of using selective breeding to cause future generations to display desired genetic traits.
So, to be more precise in my language, the scientific fact is this: eugenics can be used to alter future genotypes (with high probability) and to alter phenotypes to the extent that phenotypes are caused by genetics.
> Eugenics is a policy proposal, not a fact. How could it possibly be part of the scientific consensus?
It was a proposal for dealing with some "facts" and "theories" about which there was scientific consensus.
BTW - Eugenics in the US was a progressive enterprise.
Also, Eugenics was big in the US long before the Nazi's ever used it. In fact, they copied a lot of our programs.
and what exactly do you think "testing" involves for the economics?
we don't have a control china. all economic models are guilty of over fitting.
Exactly the same testing you do for climate science. Both are types of science where you get only one effective shot at predicting a given event because once an event passes you can no longer predict it.
Which is harder is hard to tell. Climate science has to deal with far more variables (current models still measure their grids in terms of miles, AFAIK) and the data is radically inferior to economic data. On the other hand, climate science does not (yet!) have to contend with people who take the predictions and actively use them to further confound the system.
(I say "yet" because if climate science becomes good enough to use it for engineering, all long-term predictions go out the window once nations start actively engineering outcomes. Note this isn't a criticism of climate science, it would in fact be strong validation, if the interventions worked as predicted. It's just that predictions predicated on the lack of intervention would no longer be valid.)
and climate models predict what exactly? i don't see the various panels making falsifiable hypothesis.
Climate models predict future climate in response to assorted forcings.