Science experiments should try and be, at least to some extent, repeatable.
When the article starts talking about 'social experiments', e.g.: "He’s referring to laws of nature of course, but let’s take a step back and imagine that society is a scientific enterprise. Discovering good legal rules, good regulations, or good constitutions is hard — they are not ‘given’ to us. They evolved. They appeared through different experiments in different places at different times, by different people. They will continue to change."
I think that's stretching it, and going towards the dangerous territory of framing social debate as if it were a science, and as if the 'disruptive innovation by entrepreneurs' was scientific experiment.
I think Feynman was exacting about what could be considered an experiment. From his commencement address, on 'cargo cult science', which covers this general area: "I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control."
He also points out that it can be bad to use the language of science, if you aren't really doing science: "Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals. Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts." http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
I'm not saying the article is making the mistake of cargo cult science; but just that it seems to be skirting a little close to that territory, by applying the language of science to situations in which people are not trying for rigorous experiments, and where isolating variables is particularly hard.
I don't think that disruptive innovation by entrepreneurs would meet Feynman's definition of science. I like the framing of a startup as a company set up to test a hypothesis about a business model, but I think there's a distance between entrepreneurship and science.
You make a great point, but I definitely wasn't trying to argue that the constancy in phenomena ('natural laws') occurs in society. This obviously means that the nature of 'experiments' is different because social processes are more like complex adaptive systems which show indeterminate or chaotic qualities. This makes isolating variables, like a good scientist must try to do, very difficult.
The bigger point is evolutionary: the scientific method and evolutionary epistemology support that open systems of trial and error help us falsify bad ideas and evolve novel and more accurate explanations in the real world. It has worked wonders in science and is an anti-authoritarian stance, because any theory can rise and fall by falsification. Physical technology evolves in a similar fashion (see the work on 'combinatorial evolution' of technologist Brian Arthur for example).
The argument I am trying to make, as the whole website is arguing, is that we need a similar open system to evolve our knowledge of society (rules, institutions, laws, businesses etc.)
This does get complicated because of the points mentioned above. But fields like systems theory, evolutionary/complexity economics, and the work of thinkers like FA Hayek on spontaneous order in social science is where this perspective is coming from. There's a theory page on the site www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory with more on this.
Thanks so much for your intelligent comment!
For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns.
How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certain types of laws that have been pre-approved by the state and federal courts). These laws will supersede state and federal laws."
I think this would give countries the opportunity to experiment with the effects of theoretically harmless legislation (e.g. cannabis legalization, polyamorous marriages, the invention of new types of corporations) that might make people uncomfortable if they were instantly implemented on a larger scale.
There would probably be a long period of adjustment as cities and states got used to their new relationship, but I think in the end it could bring smaller communities a lot closer together and make places in general a lot more interesting and unique.
There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as well as a practical entrepreneurial proposal called "Free Cities" here: http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Of course, the practice is abhorrent! But, and I think this is important, the ethical part has nothing to do with the science part. Consider the piece from NYT that reported Robert Spitzer's apology (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer...) for defining homosexuality as a "disease" and trying to cure it. When he published his study one commentary:
"...cited the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong. “We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination,” concluded a group of 15 researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Dr. Spitzer was affiliated."
I think that a scientific theory can we wrong or right (or currently undecided) but it cannot be morally wrong. The way you perform the experiments to test it may be morally wrong, though. There were significant faults with Spitzer's research, these should be pointed out rather than its moral wrongness.
Similarly eugenics should be attacked for its unintended consequences (e.g. extinction of Cavendish bananas http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp) and its nineteenth-century simplistic approach to the human genetic-psychological relationship which, as we now, is vastly complex.
While I agree that eugenics has been used (often poorly) to justify many horrible policies in the past, I don't think it's abhorrent in general. Today eugenics is used very successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
Most of the horrible policies we associate with eugenics are actually a result of a belief in eugenics AND malthusianism. If you reject malthusianism and replace it with, e.g., comparative advantage, you lose the scary policy prescriptions.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu....
However, the distributed method, where individuals choose to have children with people whose hereditary lines they believe should continue into the future, has been going on successfully for millions of years.
The best I could support would be more information and control. Educate people about genes, inform them which genes they possess, and watch them use that information to their benefit. Sort of like people with Huntington's disease often voluntarily refuse to reproduce, due to the likelihood of their children having it too.
2) There is a slight caveat to Feynman's point -- if a theory disagrees with experiment, it's possible that the theory is correct but the experiment / data interpretation / etc was flawed.
If you view a theory as human understanding of reality, the only reason an experiment would be fundamentally flawed (as opposed to forgetting to carry the 2) is if the understanding, and thus theory, is wrong or at least incomplete.
The same is true of markets.
In a sense the same might be said for science though.. such as if a theory is imagined long before we have the tools to actually test it out.
I do think we could go further along these lines. Wiki and Github style "let the people edit the laws before voting on them" may not be the right answer, but our current system is definitely not ideal. Finding a way to tighten the feedback loop will be tough, especially when a constitutional set of ground rules seems necessary.
Other commenters are right though, no matter how we frame it, society is not science. It's just that we feel benefits could be had by applying something like the scientific method to the laws which govern us.
However, I think the OP is wrong about Feynman. Feynman was not one to blindly believe in other people's studies. In fact, as he learned from his dad as a youth who used to make wrong interpretations of birds, etc., people are fallible, and so are their assumptions. What he was saying is that you can't argue with validly collected data and valid mathmatical proof. You can obviously argue with their interpretation.
