Krugman's comments are spot-on. What he and other liberals probably don't realize is that his comments apply to other areas of science like climate research. I've argued with many liberals who always spout "peer review" as if that somehow made the science good. Besides being an incestuous and corrupt process (much of the corruption may not be intentional, but just systemic bias), laymen think "peers" look check the data, the programming, etc. That NEVER happens. Peer review looks for major errors in logic, but papers that use data are still GIGO (Garbage In, [then] Garbage Out). If the data is corrupt for any reason, the results will be bad and peer review won't catch it. If any computer programs were used that had errors, review won't catch it.
The blog-spere has really opened up all controversial research to scrutiny.
This is a fantastic admission by Krugman--and well written and clearly stated as well. I'm beginning to think his identity got hacked again. If this is truly written by Krugman, I'd like to see him put all the pieces together and apply his logic here to pure economics. If hundreds of thousands of independent iterations of individual ideas can somehow, miraculously come together to spontaneously form a better system for the vetting and critiquing of policies and ideologies--all voluntarily and WITHOUT a centralized control center, then why can't the same system work in the day to day voluntary ECONOMIC interactions of thousands of millions of individuals to spontaneously produce a better system for setting prices and driving production?
"Yeah, but the internet (and bored system administrators) are also responsible for disseminating Libertarian/Austrian school "economics". So there's that."
Krugman's comments are spot-on. What he and other liberals probably don't realize is that his comments apply to other areas of science like climate research. I've argued with many liberals who always spout "peer review" as if that somehow made the science good. Besides being an incestuous and corrupt process (much of the corruption may not be intentional, but just systemic bias), laymen think "peers" look check the data, the programming, etc. That NEVER happens. Peer review looks for major errors in logic, but papers that use data are still GIGO (Garbage In, [then] Garbage Out). If the data is corrupt for any reason, the results will be bad and peer review won't catch it. If any computer programs were used that had errors, review won't catch it.
ReplyDeleteThe blog-spere has really opened up all controversial research to scrutiny.
This is a fantastic admission by Krugman--and well written and clearly stated as well. I'm beginning to think his identity got hacked again. If this is truly written by Krugman, I'd like to see him put all the pieces together and apply his logic here to pure economics. If hundreds of thousands of independent iterations of individual ideas can somehow, miraculously come together to spontaneously form a better system for the vetting and critiquing of policies and ideologies--all voluntarily and WITHOUT a centralized control center, then why can't the same system work in the day to day voluntary ECONOMIC interactions of thousands of millions of individuals to spontaneously produce a better system for setting prices and driving production?
ReplyDeleteKrugman was actually RIGHT about something?
ReplyDeleteDAYUMMMMMMMMMMM
I thought Hell was feeling a little chilly today.
Comment from his article:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, but the internet (and bored system administrators) are also responsible for disseminating Libertarian/Austrian school "economics". So there's that."
Probably a net loss as far as they are concerned.