Can Economics be guided by science?

[Posy McPostface]

In economics, Adam Smith coined the term (rather unintentionally) 'the invisible hand' of economics that drives all the efficiency gains and progress entailed by using the market to mediate and satisfy human wants and needs. The rather recent advent of the market entity has led to enormous prosperity and growth due to mostly satisfying wants and needs via market forces. However, the market is not infallible and what might be profitable in the short term might not bring positive results in the long run, such as the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, ozone depletion by CFC's (now banned, fortunately), and neglecting the plethora of externalities that can't be foreseen immediately at the time.

However, if the market isn't infallible and can lead to undesirable outcomes, then don't we need an entity (most likely from within a government, run by scientists) to tell us what options that the 'invisible hand' provides to us as the most efficient and safe in the long run. Sure, Keynes said that in the long run we're all dead; but, this doesn't apply to governments. This is a problem that challenges the fundamental free-market ideology that dominates at this time. We can now see the result of this lack of regulation in our modern times with new challenges that we will have to face with climate change. Not to politicize the issue; but, who would have foreseen that investing so heavily in defense would have lead to the internet or the Manhattan Project leading to abundant peace, power, and prosperity. Yes, markets can provide solutions; but, it ultimately depends on the government to declare what options are of the most utility to all participants of the economy, and this entails the whole world and future as well.

Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems. Such as cheap and abundant energy instead to let things sort themselves out via the 'invisible hand' with consequences having to be dealt with further down along the road?

 

[BillTre]

Government provides guidance of this kind through its funding of science through a wide variety of funding sources.
Similarly, private companies provide funds for research they are interested in, such as research into new drugs by pharmacology companies.
Charitable organizations do similar things for their favored causes.

All of these provide the money which makes much of modern research possible.
There may be some very rich researchers (like Tony Stark) who could afford to do whatever they want, but I have not met many of them.

 

[Borek]

whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems

You will not be able to find a consensus (and between whom?) as to what constitutes human needs and problems that have to be addressed. Perhaps some most basic, yes, but that's about it.

Many needs have to be defined in terms of social sciences, and social sciences - as opposed to STEM sciences - are unable (at least at present, but I doubt it will change anytime soon) to give precise answers. Even questions are not precise. What is the aim - everyone being happy? Define "happy". Everyone feeling safe? Define "safe". You will already have thousands of answers, many of them contradictory. As we won't be able to agree on the target, there is no way to agree on the way of reaching it.

 

[russ_watters]

In economics, Adam Smith coined the term (rather unintentionally) 'the invisible hand' of economics that drives all the efficiency gains and progress entailed by using the market to mediate and satisfy human wants and needs. The rather recent advent of the market entity has led to enormous prosperity and growth due to mostly satisfying wants and needs via market forces. However, the market is not infallible and what might be profitable in the short term might not bring positive results in the long run, such as the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, ozone depletion by CFC's (now banned, fortunately), and neglecting the plethora of externalities that can't be foreseen immediately at the time.

However, if the market isn't infallible and can lead to undesirable outcomes, then don't we need an entity (most likely from within a government, run by scientists) to tell us what options that the 'invisible hand' provides to us as the most efficient and safe in the long run. Sure, Keynes said that in the long run we're all dead; but, this doesn't apply to governments. This is a problem that challenges the fundamental free-market ideology that dominates at this time. We can now see the result of this lack of regulation in our modern times with new challenges that we will have to face with climate change. Not to politicize the issue; but, who would have foreseen that investing so heavily in defense would have lead to the internet or the Manhattan Project leading to abundant peace, power, and prosperity. Yes, markets can provide solutions; but, it ultimately depends on the government to declare what options are of the most utility to all participants of the economy, and this entails the whole world and future as well.

Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems. Such as cheap and abundant energy instead to let things sort themselves out via the 'invisible hand' with consequences having to be dealt with further down along the road?

Your question and problem description don't line-up. Your title and last paragraph ask about science being guided (by what?), but your question appears to really be about using science to guide economic/political policy. Can you clarify that it is really the latter that you are asking about?

The short answer to the latter question is that politicians are entitled to decide on policy based on whatever they think is right/gets them votes and voters have similar freedom. Hopefully when an issue contains a technical element they will consider the technical merits of the solutions, but they aren't required to. The only way I can think of to change that is to educate people better in STEM and get them to care more about the real technical merits of problems rather than the emotional or fad value.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Your question and problem description don't line-up. Your title and last paragraph ask about science being guided (by what?), but your question appears to really be about using science to guide economic/political policy. Can you clarify that it is really the latter that you are asking about?

I'm kind of confused about this myself. It's my understanding that without science, we would not be able to enjoy all the luxuries of modern day life. So, there is a close relationship between progress and scientific activity, which I don't think is even debatable. As to what science ought to be guided by is a rather moral or ethical question, which delves more into the philosophical realm of things, which I don't think anything concrete can be said about.

Yes, my question is about using science to guide decision-making at the highest levels of society, be it government and public institutions.

To boil down the issue, this is a problem of what kind of future do we want to see ourselves in and what about it that we value to make necessary investments today to make that future a reality. A failure to do so will inevitably lead to a worsening of the current issues we face as a society today, which I don't think needs to be elaborated on if I have not done so already in the OP.

The short answer to the latter question is that politicians are entitled to decide on policy based on whatever they think is right/gets them votes and voters have similar freedom. Hopefully when an issue contains a technical element they will consider the technical merits of the solutions, but they aren't required to. The only way I can think of to change that is to educate people better in STEM and get them to care more about the real technical merits of problems rather than the emotional or fad value.

Yes, and something needs to change in that regards. Does anyone else think so?

 

[Posy McPostface]

You will not be able to find a consensus (and between whom?) as to what constitutes human needs and problems that have to be addressed. Perhaps some most basic, yes, but that's about it.

Well, if the rather insatiable and never-ending aspect of human wants endangers our future, then something ought to be done, would you agree? So, some effort at arriving at a consensus is needed. I don't entirely know how to arrive at that; but, a more informed and aware public is key to addressing the issue.

Many needs have to be defined in terms of social sciences, and social sciences - as opposed to STEM sciences - are unable (at least at present, but I doubt it will change anytime soon) to give precise answers. Even questions are not precise. What is the aim - everyone being happy? Define "happy". Everyone feeling safe? Define "safe". You will already have thousands of answers, many of them contradictory. As we won't be able to agree on the target, there is no way to agree on the way of reaching it.

Apart from advocating a rather fatalistic future where we just deal with problems as they come along, encouraging a debate about what kind of future we want is important and necessary today. Fortunately, there seems to be a consensus at the highest levels of government that climate change is a known known that needs to be addressed now rather than later.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm kind of confused about this myself. It's my understanding that without science, we would not be able to enjoy all the luxuries of modern day life. So, there is a close relationship between progress and scientific activity, which I don't think is even debatable. As to what science ought to be guided by is a rather moral or ethical question, which delves more into the philosophical realm of things, which I don't think anything concrete can be said about.

You're confusing science with technology. What guides science is, quite simply, solving the next theoretical problem on the to-do list. How we use what we learned to make technology, whether it be iPads or nuclear bombs, is engineering, economics and politics, not science.

Yes, my question is about using science to guide decision-making at the highest levels of society, be it government and public institutions.

Ok, that's what I thought, and what my more detailed answer was about...

To boil down the issue, this is a problem of what kind of future do we want to see ourselves in and what about it that we value to make necessary investments today to make that future a reality. A failure to do so will inevitably lead to a worsening of the current issues we face as a society today, which I don't think needs to be elaborated on if I have not done so already in the OP.

Yes, and something needs to change in that regards. Does anyone else think so?

I do, but here's the thing: democracy means that what we get is the amalgam of all of the opinions of everyone in the country. Clearly, that group opinion holds that the status quo of, for example, fossil fuels providing most of our energy, is what what is most desirable. That's why I said education is what is needed. The majority doesn't agree that "something needs to change", so before you can change the path you have to convince people to want to change the path.

Apart from advocating a rather fatalistic future where we just deal with problems as they come along...

Humans are short-sighted, so that's typically how it works.

...encouraging a debate about what kind of future we want is important and necessary today.

I agree...unfortunately we are a minority.

Fortunately, there seems to be a consensus at the highest levels of government that climate change is a known known that needs to be addressed now rather than later.

Really? What country are you talking about? There is only one country I can think of - France* - that takes the issue of climate change seriously. Every other country on the planet pats each other on the back for saying they take it seriously while doing essentially nothing of substance that would actually demonstrate they are taking it seriously.

[edit] *ehh...they did it more for economic reasons, but still, they did it.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I do, but here's the thing: democracy means that what we get is the amalgam of all of the opinions of everyone in the country. Clearly, that group opinion holds that the status quo of, for example, fossil fuels providing most of our energy, is what what is most desirable. That's why I said education is what is needed. The majority doesn't agree that "something needs to change", so before you can change the path you have to convince people to want to change the path.

The founding fathers were well aware of the advent of science and strongly advocated for intelligent decision-making. So, what happened along the way to our present day predicament that would have been avoided with an informed and aware public?

 

[Posy McPostface]

Really? What country are you talking about? There is only one country I can think of - France - that takes the issue of climate change seriously. Every other country on the planet pats each other on the back for saying they take it seriously while doing essentially nothing of substance that would actually demonstrate they are taking it seriously.

I was not aware of the pragmatics of the issue. Thanks for making me more cynical and depressed over the issue, heh.

But, on a more serious note... There is something to admire about countries like China and India that take a more purposeful approach to reducing greenhouse emissions. I'm pretty sure China is at the forefront of addressing climate change nowadays. Is that a feature of their way of governance, yes surely.

Edit: I can quote studies if needed.

 

[256bits]

China is at the forefront of addressing climate change

Well they should be. The biggest producer of greenhouse gases, overpassing the US.
Also the country with the most billionaries AFAIK.

India that take a more purposeful approach

Only 6% production of the world's allotment of greenhouse gases, and not a very rich country.
They should also take a forefront in te discussion, if oinly for the reason they do not get swamped over by decisions maded by other countries to hinder their development.

Science has nothing to with the above decisions of the two countries. Social policy. See and re-read the post 3 by @Borek .

Here is an issue that cannot be solved by science.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/tackling_the_demand_for_rhino_horn
Social policy and culture gone haywire again. Chew on your own fingernails or cow hoofs - get the same imagined benefit.
So many more issues, that of the same ilk.

 

[Ophiolite]

Really? What country are you talking about? There is only one country I can think of - France* - that takes the issue of climate change seriously. Every other country on the planet pats each other on the back for saying they take it seriously while doing essentially nothing of substance that would actually demonstrate they are taking it seriously..

Scotland is a nation, if not a country. I believe the Scottish Government takes climate change seriously. For example, from wikipedia: "In 2015, Scotland generated 59% of its electricity consumption through renewable sources, exceeding the country's lofty goal of 50% renewable energy by 2015.[2] Moving forward, the Scottish Government's energy plan calls for 100% of electricity consumption to be generated through renewable sources by 2020, and 50% of total energy consumption (including transportation) by 2030."

 

[Bystander]

Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems.

Can cats be herded?

 

[UsableThought]

However, if the market isn't infallible and can lead to undesirable outcomes, then don't we need an entity (most likely from within a government, run by scientists) to tell us what options that the 'invisible hand' provides to us as the most efficient and safe in the long run . . .

. . . Not to politicize the issue; but, who would have foreseen that investing so heavily in defense would have lead to the internet or the Manhattan Project leading to abundant peace, power, and prosperity. Yes, markets can provide solutions; but, it ultimately depends on the government to declare what options are of the most utility to all participants of the economy, and this entails the whole world and future as well.

. . . Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems. Such as cheap and abundant energy instead to let things sort themselves out via the 'invisible hand' with consequences having to be dealt with further down along the road?

@Posy McPostface - you don't provide any information on your profile page about your academic background, work credentials and/or experience, interests, reading you've done, etc.; and in your https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hello-and-thanks.925418/ you say only that you will be asking "rather more theoretical and not the standard close ended questions found in textbooks." So the only way I have of trying to grasp your background on the question you are asking here is to try & make something of your initial post. To wit: You offer paraphrases of Adam Smith and Keynes, and assert that for the good of all peoples, government rather than the market must set policy for technology development, energy policy, etc.; and should do so with the aid of "science."

This is an understandable and even a common viewpoint; however it is also a naïve one. In your initial post you cite two famous but dated figures in the history of economics, but no other sources. So my guess is, you're working off your own notions at a fairly primitive level of "Why don't they do it like this, gosh darn it??!"

BTW, please understand that although I say "naive" and "primitive," I don't mean this as a criticism, only as an assessment. We are all of us naïve about fields which we haven't studied, and which are demanding even for professionals in those fields. No one can be expert about everything; it's hard enough being expert in a single field. So again, I don't mean these assessments personally, but only in the context of asking and investigating a hugely tough question such as the one you've asked here.

I agree with the very good comments you've gotten so far, explaining why the ideal you envision of policy guided by science is so difficult to achieve in practice. @BillTre points out that there are many funders, including government, helping with R&D; @russ_watters points out that science & technology are different things w/ different agendas, and also that educating a sufficient number of voters about not just science but rational thinking in general (e.g. numerical literacy) remains a big hurdle for the U.S. and other countries. Finally, I also agree very much with @Borek's points that (a) the root of policy isn't in science but in values, which are contentious; and (b) whereas you initial post seems confined to the hard sciences, it's the social sciences (a.k.a. soft sciences) that are typically more involved in trying to determine wise policy; and the soft sciences are incredibly messy:

Many needs have to be defined in terms of social sciences, and social sciences - as opposed to STEM sciences - are unable (at least at present, but I doubt it will change anytime soon) to give precise answers. Even questions are not precise.

So if you are really intrigued by the policy/science conjunction, what might you do to proceed to understand the issues better?

My suggestion would be to do the hard thing: Learn more about it! If you are school you could investigate advisors & courses; if you are on your own, you could try & investigate outside reading (including some textbooks). The "soft sciences" typically include economics, political science (sometimes economics is described as a subset of political science), sociology, etc.; there are also analytic disciplines such as risk analysis, statistics, systems theory, etc. There are endless books about the intersection of government, the market, and policy - so many that it will seem overwhelming. It might be that you can narrow the scope by adding STEM to the intersection; I don't really know. Regardless, unless you make some attempts to educate yourself in some of this, your question will remain essentially a mystery to you, because you won't understand the vast scope of the problem you are hoping can be solved. My own reading in these areas is scatter-shot - it wouldn't be adequate in either an academic or professional environment - but it puts me ahead of where I'd be if I did no reading at all.

Two other points as to why it's hard to do what you envision:

'Not-so-wise men and the elephant' problem. Typically any given social science looks at its field in isolation; and often not with great success. For example, economics is famously narrow in its inputs & analysis (some consider it "myopic"); and moreover is riven with dissenting views as well as miserable at prediction no matter what the viewpoint. All of this means that current economic theory isn't as useful as we'd hope for setting policy. Same w/ sociology, political science, etc. These disciplines need better theories as well as coordination & synthesis at a higher level, e.g. as proposed by systems theory. All of this is very young by comparison to the status quo.

'Complexity'/emergence problem. It's also important to realize that if we look at modern society as composed of many many systems, these systems are dynamical in nature (e.g. see social dynamics in Wikipedia); this increases the complexity & thus the degree of difficulty. I.e. such systems have emergent properties: this is of great interest to systems theory, as well as to scientists studying complex phenomena, e.g. climate. These properties of complexity and emergence make it more likely that well-intentioned policies will backfire because of unintended consequences; this suggests among other things that it's better to try out new policies via small-scale trials rather than unilaterally. Other PF members w/ far more education than I have in STEM and other fields can explain the issues w/ complexity better than I can.

 

[Posy McPostface]

@Posy McPostface - you don't provide any information on your profile page about your academic background, work credentials and/or experience, interests, reading you've done, etc

Well, I did go to college and drop out for a degree in economics, so that counts towards something.

This is an understandable and even a common viewpoint; however it is also a naïve one. In your initial post you cite two famous but dated figures in the history of economics, but no other sources. So my guess is, you're working off your own notions at a fairly primitive level of "Why don't they do it like this, gosh darn it??!"

Well, if you read my OP again you might notice that I actually am quite critical towards what you call naive or primitive understanding of economics. I resent economists who claim that the market is infallible and is all knowing.

For example, economics is famously narrow in its inputs & analysis (some consider it "myopic"); and moreover is riven with dissenting views as well as miserable at prediction no matter what the viewpoint.

Yes, it's commonly referred to as the 'dismal science'.

These disciplines need better theories as well as coordination & synthesis at a higher level, e.g. as proposed by systems theory. All of this is very young by comparison to the status quo.

Well, my criticism is based on empirical grounds, namely that we have problems unforeseen by adopting a laissez-fair attitude towards economics. So, yes, there is an issue with economics and modeling states if you are going to assume in modeling situation, et ceteris paribus.

 

[UsableThought]

Well, if you read my OP again you might notice that I actually am quite critical towards what you call naive or primitive understanding of economics. I resent economists who claim that the market is infallible and is all knowing.

I don't think it's adequate to take a pro-regulation stance, or a stance simply against neoclassical economics, as you appear to be doing. What you describe of your education was an incomplete encounter with the mainstream, i.e. the status quo; your views as you have articulated them fall within a subsection of that mainstream. I am arguing that this is entirely inadequate for the sort of high-level purpose you are asking about w/ regard to government policy being based on science of any sort.

You might want to check out this recent thread I started on a book that argues that mainstream economics is broken even if most economists and policymakers won't concede that it is: New book on dynamical, agent-based models for economics. Agent-based models at this point are more dream or "proof of concept" than useful reality; but the critique made in the first part of the book is what I would refer you to. It will likely take you well beyond whatever you may remember from college.

Somewhat tangential but still related, also see this recent thread of mine about a book arguing that when it comes to both evidence-based medicine & the social sciences, the traditional approach to Bayesian statistics is failing to produce valid, replicable conclusions to many studies: Has anyone read "Willful Ignorance" by Herbert Weisberg?

And finally, in regards to your present level of knowledge, see this other thread of mine about how how easy it is for us to fail to realize our own deep ignorance on difficult subjects, living as we do in the age of Google and "instant knowledge gratification": Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy

Whether you want to do further reading is your own choice, of course. But I think it's dangerous for any of us to assume that we can tackle enormous questions w/ inadequate tools, e.g. our past education w/ all its limits. You've gotten good comments in this thread about how big the knot is; if this is a knot that really interests you, you'll have to learn a lot before you can start unraveling it. If it doesn't really interest you enough to put in the work, that's OK; time is always an issue & we have to pick & choose among our interests.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I don't think it's adequate to take a pro-regulation stance, or a stance simply against neoclassical economics, as you appear to be doing. What you describe of your education was an incomplete encounter with the mainstream, i.e. the status quo; your views as you have articulated them fall within a subsection of that mainstream. I am arguing that this is entirely inadequate for the sort of high-level purpose you are asking about w/ regard to government policy being based on science of any sort.

I fail to see the merit in pointing out that I'm not a post-doc and only post-docs can only answer the question I posed. It really smells of an appeal to authority. I have nothing against knowing more, though.

You might want to check out this recent thread I started on a book that argues that mainstream economics is broken even if most economists and policymakers won't concede that it is: New book on dynamical, agent-based models for economics. Agent-based models at this point are more dream or "proof of concept" than useful reality; but the critique made in the first part of the book is what I would refer you to. It will likely take you well beyond whatever you may remember from college.

It looks interesting; but, keep in mind that the economic recession of 2007/08 was not caused by rational agents; but, rather institutions with too much freedom and credit. I have nothing against Keynesian economics as long as you're not leveraging the economy for constant growth. Also, China seems to me to be an example of a predominantly state-run economy that flaunts free market ideology.

Whether you want to do further reading is your own choice, of course.

I learn best via a dialectical method, hence me posting here.

Edit: I'll check the links you provided and might order the first book on agent based decision making (although the premise of the book seems to be that people know what's best for them, which is a can of worms to address).

 

[UsableThought]

I might order the first book on agent based decision making (although the premise of the book seems to be that people know what's best for them, which is a can of worms to address).

? Not sure where you got that; it's not at all the premise. But I'm glad you'll consider ordering it. Aside from the content it's enjoyably written & very well sourced.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Fine, I'll address that point here from that thread if that's OK.

His thesis is that (1) all the usual theories of economics - including the neoclassical school whose precepts often get approvingly cited in discussions in this forum as if they represented reality rather than merely being part of a model - are incapable of predicting the emergence of crises (apparently many economists agree with this part); (2) that where these models go wrong is in simplifying economic life by assuming it is entirely made up of rational actors who have full knowledge of markets; and finally (3) the way toward better modeling is to adopt an agent-driven, dynamical approach that has some similarity to certain problems in physics with computationally irreducible systems/problems, with the agents designed so that they are not rational and do not have full knowledge of the collective system but rather, follow context-dependent heuristics, thus more closely resembling humans and human-driven institutions. More on dynamical systems here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

Addressing point 3. Doesn't that require one to know what each and every individual wants or is this only a need driven model? How do you account for individual bias and preferences and valuations? It only seems to introduce more complexity than simplicity, which is needed in modeling complex behavior on the microeconomic scale.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I think the title of the thread is confusing. Possibly a more apt title would be "Can economics be guided by science?"

I'm open to change the confusing title at any rate.

 

[UsableThought]

Addressing point 3. Doesn't that require one to know what each and every individual wants or is this only a need driven model? How do you account for individual bias and preferences and valuations? It only seems to introduce more complexity than simplicity, which is needed in modeling complex behavior on the microeconomic scale.

Yes, there are lots of questions about how to actually build such a model - not easy, lots of computational power required, all sorts of devilish questions. Also bear in mind that representation of individual agents need not be done in a literal sense; all models make some simplifications.

But again the part of the book that I am recommending here is the critique of the existing mainstream, w/ sources including economists themselves. It's a start at least.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Yes, there are lots of questions about how to actually build such a model - not easy, lots of computational power required, all sorts of devilish questions. Also bear in mind that representation of individual agents need not be done in a literal sense; all models make some simplifications.

Well, I see the inherent complexity in modeling microeconomic behavior due to individual variations between individuals as an argument for macroeconomic modeling. You have variations smoothed out due to the law of large numbers and more participants evening out the outliers. I just don't see the practicality of modeling individual characteristics and thus expectations that drive decision-making as something achievable anytime soon.

But again the part of the book that I am recommending here is the critique of the existing mainstream, w/ sources including economists themselves. It's a start at least.

Yeah, regardless of my sentiments I'll give it a shot around my next paycheck.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm a bit puzzled to where this thread is going, and the goal or aim seems to be rather diffused now. Therefore, I'm going back to the original post:

In economics, Adam Smith coined the term (rather unintentionally) 'the invisible hand' of economics that drives all the efficiency gains and progress entailed by using the market to mediate and satisfy human wants and needs. The rather recent advent of the market entity has led to enormous prosperity and growth due to mostly satisfying wants and needs via market forces. However, the market is not infallible and what might be profitable in the short term might not bring positive results in the long run, such as the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, ozone depletion by CFC's (now banned, fortunately), and neglecting the plethora of externalities that can't be foreseen immediately at the time.

However, if the market isn't infallible and can lead to undesirable outcomes, then don't we need an entity (most likely from within a government, run by scientists) to tell us what options that the 'invisible hand' provides to us as the most efficient and safe in the long run. Sure, Keynes said that in the long run we're all dead; but, this doesn't apply to governments. This is a problem that challenges the fundamental free-market ideology that dominates at this time. We can now see the result of this lack of regulation in our modern times with new challenges that we will have to face with climate change. Not to politicize the issue; but, who would have foreseen that investing so heavily in defense would have lead to the internet or the Manhattan Project leading to abundant peace, power, and prosperity. Yes, markets can provide solutions; but, it ultimately depends on the government to declare what options are of the most utility to all participants of the economy, and this entails the whole world and future as well.

Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems. Such as cheap and abundant energy instead to let things sort themselves out via the 'invisible hand' with consequences having to be dealt with further down along the road?

There are two different issues here that should be separated out:

1. Can "science" be guided? No, if by "science" we mean the actual science or the validity of a scientific idea. This is because the final arbiter of what is valid and what isn't is still Mother Nature, and She doesn't give a hoot on whether you like her or not, or whether you poured money and power behind something, because if She doesn't like it, it will never be true or valid.

2. Can the PRACTICE of science be guided? Definitely! By "practice", I mean the direction of scientific endeavor, research, progress, emphasis, etc. This is done, has been done throughout history, and will continue to be done, mainly because there is only a finite amount of money that is available. The 50's and 60's saw the US and USSR directing money into the space program. The 80's and early 90's saw the formation of Science and Technology Centers in the US to tackle the newly-discovered high-Tc superconductors, while the late 90's and into 2000 saw Centers in the US for nanoscience. These are all efforts to guide and fund certain direction of science that has been deemed to be important and crucial.

Various field of studies in physics have "steering committees" that are often called to provide guidance to funding agencies on the direction that future work should go into. The high-energy physics community in the US has the P5 panel that meets regularly (and generally open to the public) to focus on what areas should be given priorities. In my area of Accelerator science, we have the Advanced Accelerator Workshop that occurs every 2 years, in which physicists and engineers from academia and private industries meet to discuss the direction of the field and then provide a guidance to the Dept. of Energy on future progress and funding.

So yes, the practice of science CAN be guided and has been the standard operating procedure for as long as I can tell.

Zz.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I'm a bit puzzled to where this thread is going, and the goal or aim seems to be rather diffused now.

Well, to compound on that confusion, it seems to me that modern day science is not, rather has not been guided by anything apart from the exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities since the advent of the markets. Although, there are many scientists that are motivated by arriving at some conclusion or even 'truth' about certain phenomena, that has not been what has been driving science in general, for the recent past.

However, it is precisely because of those scientists that have pursued noble goals, such as knowing the 'truth' about Nature or wanting to deepen their understanding of the world or satisfy their curiosity, that/who have advanced the field, not commercial activity satisfying wants and desires manifest by economic activity.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, to compound on that confusion, it seems to me that modern day science is not, rather has not been guided by anything apart from the exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities since the advent of the markets. Although, there are many scientists that are motivated by arriving at some conclusion or even 'truth' about certain phenomena, that has not been what has been driving science in general, for the recent past.

Say what?

What exactly is your evidence for this? Did you conduct a thorough investigation to arrive at such a conclusion, or do you have published studies to back this up?

What "...exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities since the advent of the markets..." do you see when you look at funding for high energy physics or astrophysics?

I'm not saying that many aspect of science research has no commercial or application benefits. But that is like saying research is QM that produces MRI, CT-Scan, etc. is solely for commercial exploitation while being blind to the benefits that it has brought. And of course, you say this while benefiting from the modern electronics that came out of the fruits of labor from such scientific research endeavor.

However, it is precisely because of those scientists that have pursued noble goals, such as knowing the 'truth' about Nature or wanting to deepen their understanding of the world or satisfy their curiosity, that/who have advanced the field, not commercial activity satisfying wants and desires manifest by economic activity.

This is not an either/or. This is a BOTH. There are places for BOTH type of activities, i.e. in pure, basic research and in the application and commercialization of research knowledge. One doesn't have to choose one over the other. The fundamental physics that drive origins for the Higgs can also find application in the magnetic behavior of your hard drive!

This is a very funny and strange position to be in. Usually, *I* have to justify to the public why they should support fundamental science research, and I have to show them all the modern devices that they use that came out of such research. Now, it seems I have to do the opposite! How odd!

But this is now a different topic. You originally asked IF science can be "guided". Have anything answered your question? Asking for justification on why it is directed one way or the other is a different topic.

Zz.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Say what?

What exactly is your evidence for this? Did you conduct a thorough investigation to arrive at such a conclusion, or do you have published studies to back this up?

What "...exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities since the advent of the markets..." do you see when you look at funding for high energy physics or astrophysics?

I'm not saying that many aspect of science research has no commercial or application benefits. But that is like saying research is QM that produces MRI, CT-Scan, etc. is solely for commercial exploitation while being blind to the benefits that it has brought. And of course, you say this while benefiting from the modern electronics that came out of the fruits of labor from such scientific research endeavor.
This is not an either/or. This is a BOTH. There are places for BOTH type of activities, i.e. in pure, basic research and in the application and commercialization of research knowledge. One doesn't have to choose one over the other. The fundamental physics that drive origins for the Higgs can also find application in the magnetic behavior of your hard drive!

This is a very funny and strange position to be in. Usually, *I* have to justify to the public why they should support fundamental science research, and I have to show them all the modern devices that they use that came out of such research. Now, it seems I have to do the opposite! How odd!

But this is now a different topic. You originally asked IF science can be "guided". Have anything answered your question? Asking for justification on why it is directed one way or the other is a different topic.

Zz.

Sorry, upon rereading my previous post it almost sounds Marxist. I will refrain from posting here and you can disregard my previous Marxist banter.

Thank you for the informative post.

 

[Ophiolite]

Research has to be funded. Those providing the funds want a return now (most of the instances) or later (blue sky research that is a small proportion of the total). Therefore Posty's suggestion that science has not been guided by anything apart from the exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities seems a reasonable one, though we might object to its absolute character. That can be addressed by substituing "mostly" for "anything apart from".

 

[ZapperZ]

Research has to be funded. Those providing the funds want a return now (most of the instances) or later (blue sky research that is a small proportion of the total). Therefore Posty's suggestion that science has not been guided by anything apart from the exploitation of its means to satisfy wants and desires in the economy via commercial entities seems a reasonable one, though we might object to its absolute character. That can be addressed by substituing "mostly" for "anything apart from".

If you mean a "return" as in knowledge or a new understanding, sure. But if you imply a "return" as in commercial or profit, then I disagree.

Research done in industries may follow such a demand, but this is why we have research funded by govt. entities. One doesn't expect to make a "profit" when one builds the Tevatron, the LHC, the APS, the RHIC, etc. Even the Kavli Institute, which is a private funding agency, doesn't expect to make a profit when it funds research in fundamental, theoretical physics.

Zz.

 

[jim hardy]

Wow - the thread and its title diverged in the very first post.

Can Economics be guided by science?

As in math and modern control theory ?

Look up Irving Fisher, he wrote some pretty interesting economic papers around 1910 that seem to still guide economic policy today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher

 

[Posy McPostface]

Wow - the thread and its title diverged in the very first post.

Well, to be fair, I did make an effort at finding an apt title. It's just hard to give guidance to a field that entails the satisfaction of endless wants and desires and preferences in combination with scarcity of resources withing the context of billions of individuals (rational actors).

As in math and modern control theory ?

It's more of a question of, whether economics can be guided at all, along with all the 'rational' actors in it despite me providing evidence that the term 'rational' doesn't really seem all that rational if you encounter existential threats due to the workings of the economy. So, there's either a gap in my understanding or people being 'rational' is a wrong term very contextually dependant and stipulative term to use if said threats arise due to their endless wants.

Look up Irving Fisher, he wrote some pretty interesting economic papers around 1910 that seem to still guide economic policy today.

I'll take a look. Thank's.

 

[Tosh5457]

You won't get an universal equation that applies to everything in economics. Rather, there are different models for different problems, some quantitative, some qualitative (quality of institutions, politics, and other factors that impact a national economy can be hard to quantify). But economics has of course to be scientific - otherwise, why would anyone pay any attention to its conclusions?

 

[jim hardy]

I always liked this quote

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
John Kenneth Galbraith
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnkennet391543.html

 

[Posy McPostface]

In regards to quotes. I remember some famous physicist asked if he would be interested in the field of economics.

His reply was something to the matter that there were too many variables for anything meaningful to be said about, in the field.

 

[XZ923]

The basic problem I see with the premise is that economics is inextricably linked to things like politics, philosophy, etc. which can't be quantified. Science is about what can be observed and empirically recorded. Take for example the current tax reform legislation (not offering an opinion on it either way just using it as an example). The primary criticism is that it's unfair to low- and middle-income earners and disproportionately favors the wealthy. How do you scientifically determine "fair" and "favor"? You can present numerical arguments for both sides. The closest you could come to a scientific model would be to base it on efficiency, which would probably end up looking like basic Darwinism ("survival of the fittest"). The moment you begin taking things like civil rights into account you've crossed over from science to philosophy. Not that that's a bad thing; our embracing of metaphysics like philosophy is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.