undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstanfordkid5y ago0 comments

I think the real problem is, is that the humanities -- the social sciences in particular -- have proven themselves to consistently build bad models with unproven assumptions. These assumptions have been leveraged to directly influence policy (instead of, say, trying a lot of different things and seeing what works).

Here's a concrete example of a paper [1] that just came out, attempting to impact COVID19 policy, from a very "respectable" set of academics at Yale -- that is based on a flat out fabricated economic model:

We focus primarily on the moderate scenario. That is, our baseline assumption is that diminishing returns play a larger role than accelerating returns (so that α ≤ 1) but not so large that they lead to α < 0. We stress that U depends both on the variation in economic value attached to different activities and on the model governing the disease transmission

Translation: we made some equations that makes the BAD thing BAD and the GOOD thing GOOD.

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045v...

0 comments

gnicholas5y ago

> I think the real problem is, is that the humanities -- the social sciences in particular

This construction makes it seem like you view social sciences as a subset of humanities. I was taught that neither is a subset of the other.

Where did you get your impression from? I assume it’s not the university in your username, since I’m certain they don’t share this view. (Source: I’m married to a humanities professor at that university. Also: https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofhumanitiesandsci...)

schwarze_pest5y ago

At least my wikipedia tells me that.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studia_humanitatis#Humanities

dash25y ago

They make assumptions and then foreground them so the reader can understand them. What's wrong with that? Have you discovered a way of drawing conclusions without assumptions? Or do you think you can "just observe" without being guided by theory? What would a non-"fabricated" model look like?

stanfordkidOP5y ago

The problem is, that the assumption is not rooted in any empirical phenomena. They have neither historical data to fit to (which itself would be tenuous) nor do they have any sort of first order justification for it.

It's like doing a car crash safety simulation and stating that the airbag provides protective force "linearly proportional to the force of impact, with alpha > 1" ... without ever measuring it or doing any calculations on why this would be the case. Would you drive in a car that was tested this way?

dash25y ago

I'm too damn lazy to read the paper, so you may be right. But normally, we practice a division of labour. Theoreticians build models in the expectation that empiricists will (a) test them and (b) estimate key parameters. If these guys have said "we have the answer, this is what you should do" then maybe you are right.

I'm not saying either that this phenomenon never happens. I just think it's rather rare, especially among sensible and skilled economists. See also the great Bob Sugden's paper "Credible Worlds", which is available here at the moment.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tony_Lawson2/publicatio...

1 more reply

rdcurd5y ago

I think most, if not all self-respecting social science scholars would resent being lumped in with economists

gnicholas5y ago

Which fields are you referring to? I think of psychology as perhaps more rigorous, but none of the others (sociology, anthropology, political science).

watwut5y ago

Sociologists often complains that economists don't bother reading established peer reviewed sociology and opt for own guesswork based on own intuitive observations whenever they attempt to incorporate sociology-lite into their writings.

FranzFerdiNaN5y ago

Anthropology contains biological anthtopology and archaeology, both of which are a lot more like the physical sciences than psychology.

dash25y ago

FWIW experimental economics results seem to be more reproducible than psychology.[1] Though this is a bit of a pot-kettle blackness contest.

[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6280/1433

wilbo5y ago

This is a problem I find tiring about most studies, even in the sciences (excluding most physics and all mathematics). It seems as if most researchers are looking for a novel or interesting correlation or apply an interesting model to a new domain. Generally, I've found this puts insufficient effort into any kind of disconfirmation.

It makes sense, though, with the incentives most academic journals put into study authors. Nothing's sexy about disproving some random model fits.

naasking5y ago

Replication and publishing negative results do not get the respect they deserve. They should be given equal attention and funding as novel results. That would fix the replication crisis.

luckylion5y ago

Are they not published in the major journals, or are they not published at all? The latter would seem insane. "We've tried this, it didn't work, but nobody will know and somebody will try it again next week to find out that it doesn't work."

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsstanfordkid5y ago0 comments

Translation: we made some equations that makes the BAD thing BAD and the GOOD thing GOOD.

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20107045v...

0 comments

gnicholas5y ago

> I think the real problem is, is that the humanities -- the social sciences in particular

This construction makes it seem like you view social sciences as a subset of humanities. I was taught that neither is a subset of the other.

schwarze_pest5y ago

At least my wikipedia tells me that.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studia_humanitatis#Humanities

dash25y ago

stanfordkidOP5y ago

dash25y ago

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tony_Lawson2/publicatio...

1 more reply

rdcurd5y ago

I think most, if not all self-respecting social science scholars would resent being lumped in with economists

gnicholas5y ago

Which fields are you referring to? I think of psychology as perhaps more rigorous, but none of the others (sociology, anthropology, political science).

watwut5y ago

FranzFerdiNaN5y ago

Anthropology contains biological anthtopology and archaeology, both of which are a lot more like the physical sciences than psychology.

dash25y ago

FWIW experimental economics results seem to be more reproducible than psychology.[1] Though this is a bit of a pot-kettle blackness contest.

[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6280/1433

wilbo5y ago

It makes sense, though, with the incentives most academic journals put into study authors. Nothing's sexy about disproving some random model fits.

naasking5y ago

Replication and publishing negative results do not get the respect they deserve. They should be given equal attention and funding as novel results. That would fix the replication crisis.

luckylion5y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse