by From Ken Zimmerman (originally a comment) At least part of the problem here is that these economists seem to have made up a way of doing science that exists nowhere else. To be sure their way existed once among some at or shortly after the beginning of science in Europe. Scientists are depicted as patiently piecing together a giant puzzle. But with a puzzle you see the manufacturer has guaranteed there is a solution. Certainly not the case with the work of scientists. This view remains common among the general public and even some scientists. When most people think of science, it appears they imagine the nearly 500-year-long systematic pursuit of knowledge that, over 14 or so generations, has uncovered more information about the universe and everything in it than all that was known
Topics:
Editor considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Fryslan boppe´. An in-depth inspirational analysis of work rewarded with the 2024 Riksbank prize in economic sciences.
Peter Radford writes AJR, Nobel, and prompt engineering
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Central bank independence — a convenient illusion
Eric Kramer writes What if Trump wins?
from Ken Zimmerman (originally a comment)
At least part of the problem here is that these economists seem to have made up a way of doing science that exists nowhere else. To be sure their way existed once among some at or shortly after the beginning of science in Europe. Scientists are depicted as patiently piecing together a giant puzzle. But with a puzzle you see the manufacturer has guaranteed there is a solution. Certainly not the case with the work of scientists. This view remains common among the general public and even some scientists. When most people think of science, it appears they imagine the nearly 500-year-long systematic pursuit of knowledge that, over 14 or so generations, has uncovered more information about the universe and everything in it than all that was known in the first 5,000 years of recorded human history. They imagine a brotherhood tied together by its golden rule, the Scientific Method, an immutable set of precepts for devising experiments that churn out the cold, hard facts. And these solid facts form the edifice of science, an unbroken record of advances and insights embodied in our modern views and unprecedented standard of living. Science, with a capital S.
That’s all very nice, but I’m afraid it’s mostly a tale woven by newspaper reports, television documentaries, and high school lesson plans. And it’s definitely not science. Let me tell you my somewhat different perspective. It’s not facts and rules. It’s black cats in dark rooms. As the Princeton mathematician Andrew Wiles describes it: It’s groping and probing and poking, and some bumbling and bungling, and then a switch is stumbled on, often by accident, and the light is lit, and everyone says, “Oh, wow, so that’s how it looks,” and then it’s off into the next dark room, looking for the next mysterious black feline. If this all sounds depressing, perhaps some bleak Beckett-like scenario of existential endlessness, it’s not. In fact, it’s somehow exhilarating. It’s challenging and an adventure but also at times frustrating as hell. And, it’s important to note that what scientists do differs from everyday life only in that for scientists the rooms are larger and darker and the reliability of the reports of a black cat much more uncertain.
(Based on Ignorance, How It Drives Science. Stuart Firestein)