0
$\begingroup$

Unless otherwise stated, a question and answer pair is presumed to be ontological. It is "about" phenomena; it is not about the opinion regarding a phenomena independent of the arguable truth or falsity of this opinion but depending solely on the popularity of the opinion. (n)

(n) is how I understand the approach to answering questions on this site. Scientific questions are purely about phenomena: ontological. But apparently not everyone agrees?

To put it concretely: if on, say, mathoverflow, somebody asks whether a theorem $T$ is true or false, the assertion that "many people pretend it's true, it's easier to do so" (u) is NOT an answer. That treats the question as not "about" the nature, not about truth or falsity, but rather about preference of observers of nature ... which is off topic unless specifically requested.

Consider, again, what would happen, if on tex.se or stackoverflow, somebody ask how to write a code that gives a certain output, and somebody else answers "here is a definition that is most common, although it doesn't actually give anything like the required output". That wouldn't work, would it?

I suggest that a Q and A site functions best if it follows approach (n) instead of (u).

Now, does anybody really consider approach (u) to be preferable to approach (n) when answering some questions, especially there where a definite ontological answer exists in the literature?

Consider the example: a question asks about a theorem, and this theorem is actually known to be false in the technical literature, and references exist. (I) They are given as an answer. To this a reply is given: (II) a plenty of other literature conventionally assumes for convenience, when teaching, that it is true, and suggests treating it as true. Approach (n) states that (I) is the answer preferred. Approach (u) states that (II) is the answer preferred.

If in this case anyone DOES prefers approach (u) over (n) when answering questions: why?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your last example is not clear: "T is false because (reference) exists in the literature" is an example of the (n) or of the (u) approach? $\endgroup$
    – Alecos Papadopoulos
    Nov 30, 2014 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ (n). I've made it clearer, I hope. $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Nov 30, 2014 at 17:48

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

mathoverflow, tex, and other sites like them are what I'll call here "deterministic systems": for a given input, a given set of assumptions, you'll always get a given output. e.g. for a given set of assumptions and conditions, the four-colour map theorem is true, and that's the end of it. For a given range of tex interpreters, a particular tex string will produce a fixed output.

Not all Stack Exchanges are about deterministic systems.

Academia, for example, is about the real world; Sustainability is the same. For a given set of inputs, there can be a given range of outputs. The assumptions and underlying principles can be flexible, can differ from place to place and time to time, and so on. The simplifying assumptions that are made, and the sensitivity of the answer to them, are often a more significant issue than where those assumptions lead you.

Economics spans the deterministic and non-deterministic. Maybe theoretical economics tends towards the deterministic, and applied economics towards the non-deterministic.

So, don't expect economics.se to be like tex.se or stackoverflow, because it won't be. And don't expect any other site to be like mathoverflow, because that evolved outside the stack exchange network, and has a culture very different to the rest of the network.

All economic models are wrong. That doesn't make them useless (H/T George Box). The mere existence of a model being proven wrong in the literature, doesn't make it useless. Now, if the literature demonstrates that the model is useless in some particular circumstances, then using it in those circumstances is something that could be refuted by a reference to the literature.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ So you're arguing that economics is not to be treated strictly scientifically? (BTW, I do not agree that all economic models are wrong. Many are perfectly true: unless you define models to be econometrics models, in which case you are right by definition. But if so, those are not the only models...) $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Dec 1, 2014 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ No, that's not what I wrote, and it's not what I'm arguing. How did you come to that misunderstanding? If you can explain how, I'll try to clarify the relevant wording. $\endgroup$
    – 410 gone
    Dec 1, 2014 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ It seems like you're using "deterministic" as a replacement for "scientific" (because all science means is that claims about the world are proven or provable, and if falsified, dropped.) And the issue is that not all economic models are wrong. Many are proven mathematical results (true for all systems of a given form) applied to the special case of economic systems of this form, or mathematical language restatements (and nothing more) of experimental facts from other fields (psychology). $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Dec 1, 2014 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ ... These when combined lead to models that are strictly true; when hypotheses are falsified by such methods, they are dropped. A dropped model cannot be preferred scientifically to one that isn't dropped if dropped for these reasons. Like a nonworking program cannot be preferred to a working one. (Unless one wants to look at it to try to fix it or learn what to avoid supposing.) $\endgroup$
    – user218
    Dec 1, 2014 at 14:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's a fairly idiosyncratic ida of what "science" means, I think. Anyway, no, I'm not intending it as a replacement (I take it you mean "replacement" in the sense of "synonym" - is that right?). $\endgroup$
    – 410 gone
    Dec 1, 2014 at 16:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "provable economic models" are one of the things I had in mind when I wrote: "The simplifying assumptions that are made, and the sensitivity of the answer to them, are often a more significant issue than where those assumptions lead you." There are lots of sterile economic models of the form: "assume 2 and 3 and Peano addition - the answer is 5". That's useless. What's interesting is the assumptions, how they map to reality, and how the answer changes when reality deviates from the assumptions. (2 male rabbits plus 3 female rabbits equals hundreds of rabbits, soon enough) $\endgroup$
    – 410 gone
    Dec 1, 2014 at 16:09

You must log in to answer this question.