Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

Even physics has some "problems" like this. Ain't nobody know where that particle is. You know its probability range though (if that's how to put it).

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble. What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics. What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I feel like this statement is going to get me in trouble.

It is.

What I meant is that behavior of particles isn't modeled to the point where we have the types of certainty that we do in other aspects of physics.

You're so right, but for the perfectly wrong reason.

The "other aspects of physics" struggle to get 7 to 10 significant digits (decimal places) in agreement with theoretical values on their best days, in their best labs. QM makes predictions that are accurate to over 35 sig figs. In short the amount of certainty we have that QM is a description of reality is like a million billion billion times more than "other aspects of physics."

What I'm referring to is the electron probability cloud thing, but I'm aware that there are many other uncertainties in quantum physics as well.

All of which is - amazingly - defined, quantified, and predictable.

Note that you can certainly know the location of any particle to arbitrary precision. However, in so manipulating the wave function (particle), you impart a more and more uncertain amount of momentum to it. Photons are tricksy, with their well-defined momentum, but QM describes the uncertainties in photons, too.

The fact is that uncertainty is the nature of the universe. Or at least, any definitive certainty which underlies the uncertainty manifests as predictable uncertainties, which are equivalent to those described by QM.

This is not in disagreement among physicists.

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

***
There are many contested ideas at the cutting edge of physics, but QM uncertainties are not among them.

You'd be better suited to talk about string theorists than QM.

I'd be hard pressed to draw distinctions between the methods and results of string theory vs economics.

[wufwugy]

The misnomer that this kind of uncertainty somehow implies an inability of QM to predict observations is demonstrably false.

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't mean to imply that. Degree of uncertainty doesn't mean it's uncertain, at least as far as we use "uncertain" colloquially. I brought it up because a chunk of what we (me you rilla) end up debating on this forum involves the idea that economics is just so incredibly uncertain that it's useless.

I certainly don't think economics is useless. If anything, I think it's ridiculously complex, and even though a lot of diligent and intelligent people have been working on it, and some of them are quite well-funded, the ability to reduce the complexity is still very limited.

I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.

Whether or not something is considered "a science" has no relation to the fact that the scientific process is a part of literally every field of study, or at least can be.

Whether or not something is a science has no relation to its utility to humans. Whether or not mathematics is a science is a funny debate, and it all hinges on the fact that theoretical mathematicians and theoretical physicists do very similar work, with only slightly different motivations.

So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.

If nothing else, you've shown me that the scientific process is more a part of economics than I was aware.

[wufwugy]

So when I disagree with your assessment that economics is a science, that is not an implication that economics is useless... just different.

Eh it's mostly Rilla who does this. I mean, maybe he doesn't, but it certainly presents like he does.

I also think that you kind of misunderstand science it when you call economics a science.

Science is a way of thinking. Wherever you make hypotheses, predictions, experiment, assess, and repeat (or at least attempt to do so within whatever confines you're given), I call it science. Different types of experimentation yield much better results though. I'm fine with terms like "hard science" and "soft science" to describe the difference between ones that utilize highly controlled studies and ones that can't so much.

What I don't like is how common it is to call the hard sciences like what you learn in academia when getting a bachelors of science as science and not calling, well, everything else you study a science, like sociology. Sociology is technically a social science, but my point is that people don't think of it as a science, and THAT causes all sorts of problems where people think they can make up some bullshit and it be good sociology. Guesses are never acceptable answers in STEM but they are sometimes acceptable answers in just about everything else. It's ridiculous.

Frankly, it's silly that STEM is harder than everything else. There's no reason social sciences and humanities and business should be easier than the hard sciences, but they are easier because so many people treat them unscientifically.