Christopher Hitchens

DanDan6592

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Theoretical Physics is a very broad term. I presume maybe you mean the likes of String theory?

No, I'm referring to TP generally. Yes it's a broad term, so is 'economics', which some people on this thread appear to have a real grudge against, for some unidentified reasons.

I was referring to a poster who insisted that in physics, theories are generally not accepted until verified in experimental physics. This is completely untrue, its logical consequence would mean that even the most basic abstractions used in TP would be, at best, distrusted and excluded by the scientific community. This is a nonsense.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I’m not sure what you are not understanding. Mathematics is a tool. You can use it for astrological charts.

Economic predictions are generally useless, particularly useless when there’s a major event like 2008. Economics isn’t even useful at explaining the past. There’s more than one explanation for the Great Depression for instance, depending on ideological bent.

I really don't know whether to take this seriously, or not.

Firstly, your reference to mathematics being a tool is not something anyone is "misunderstanding". A small child can see that. What is puzzling, is your references to astrology, as if to liken it to econometrics/ economic forecasting or any economic activity that relies on mathematical formalisation.

The people with the problem appear to me to be those who expect economists, or at least those who concern themselves with forecasting, to be prophets. No sensible economist has ever proclaimed an ability predict the future. The most successful economist (and one of the most successful investors) in the history of the world, Keynes, had pretty much abandoned economic forecasting by the 1930s.

That is not to say economic forecasting isn't a worthwhile pursuit. It may well be the case that economic forecasting can be a victim of its own success, leading to a strange type of confirmation bias -- plainly, if the ESRI predicts a recession in 2020, and this triggers the Government to implement policy changes which stimulate economic growth, then a superficial retrospective analysis will say that the forecast was wrong, but that isn't necessarily a fair assessment of what was forecast, and how economic policy was subsequently adjusted. In all likelihood, this is why UK GDP growth following the Brexit Referendum was not as bad as was originally forecast.

Therefore, your claim that "economics predictions are generally useless" is, frankly, a fairly daft generalisation. It is true that cataclysmic events like the Great Recession were not widely predicted -- extrinsic and intrinsic unpredictbility are difficult and pernicious realities that are a natural consequence of complex information sets.

Orthodox economic modelling techniques like those used by the ECB, the IMF might be described as 'mean reversion' models which means that when the equilibrium mean changes (house prices, unemployment figures, equity prices -- whatever), the model pushes the freocast backwards to the historical mean. The greater the break, the more unpredictable this is. Economists know this, nobody denies this, so it's a bit contrived when people throw their hands in the air and attempt to consign economics to the dustbin.

There are limits to seeing into the future. That should not be a surprise to anybody.

Having said that, there are improvements happening all the time which can render such cataclysmic events, like the Great Recession, more amenable to forecasting. The orthodox method I just mentioned, the most often-used of which is dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modelling, can be improved -- and this has been shown through empirical research -- using newer and more robust amendments. I don't know whether it's worth getting into that here, but here is a paper showing this improvement when applied to UK GDP forecasts

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407613000924

Economic forecasting isn't perfect. Nobody is saying it is. But that isn't a sufficient reason to express some kind of irrational dislike or distrust of/ towards such a broad field of human endeavour. After all, the vast majority of economists do not engage in macroeconomic forecasting at all.

p1akuw47h5r3it

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, I'm referring to TP generally. Yes it's a broad term, so is 'economics', which some people on this thread appear to have a real grudge against, for some unidentified reasons.

I was referring to a poster who insisted that in physics, theories are generally not accepted until verified in experimental physics. This is completely untrue, its logical consequence would mean that even the most basic abstractions used in TP would be, at best, distrusted and excluded by the scientific community. This is a nonsense.

Theories generally aren't accepted until there is some scientific evidence. For example String Theory has plenty of critics and there are competing ideas. There is no consensus around string theory because there is virtually no experimental evidence that it is correct. Plenty of Scientists have moved away from String Theory as they believe it's a pointless pursuit.
This doesn't mean it's not worth perusing though necessarily, as it may be possible to one day test for evidence that it is correct. As I said, Einstein predicted that the quicker you move, the slower time moves. This was only found to be true years later. Or take the quantum/statistical nature of matter, when this was first postulated it had many detractors and evoked fierce debate. Again it was proven by experiments to be correct.

Regardless we're probably far off topic here anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, I'm referring to TP generally. Yes it's a broad term, so is 'economics', which some people on this thread appear to have a real grudge against, for some unidentified reasons.

I was referring to a poster who insisted that in physics, theories are generally not accepted until verified in experimental physics. This is completely untrue, its logical consequence would mean that even the most basic abstractions used in TP would be, at best, distrusted and excluded by the scientific community. This is a nonsense.

What are you talking about? What I’m describing is the scientific method. Literally. Nobel prize winners in physics win their prizes after verification. Plenty of theories exist but only the ones that are proven by experiment are accepted. Certainly the fundamentals are proven. We spend billions on the large hadrion collider whose purpose is:

Data are also needed from high-energy particle experiments to suggest which versions of current scientific models are more likely to be correct – in particular to choose between the Standard Model and Higgsless model and to validate their predictions and allow further theoretical development.

I really don't know whether to take this seriously, or not.

Firstly, your reference to mathematics being a tool is not something anyone is "misunderstanding". A small child can see that. What is puzzling, is your references to astrology, as if to liken it to econometrics/ economic forecasting or any economic activity that relies on mathematical formalisation.

The people with the problem appear to me to be those who expect economists, or at least those who concern themselves with forecasting, to be prophets. No sensible economist has ever proclaimed an ability predict the future.

What are the mathematical models doing then? And economists predict all the time. They just it wrong all the time.

The most successful economist (and one of the most successful investors) in the history of the world, Keynes, had pretty much abandoned economic forecasting by the 1930s.

Yes, Keynes is the one true genius in economics. It’s a bit odd to use him in this example since he was firmly opposed to mathematical models.

That is not to say economic forecasting isn't a worthwhile pursuit. It may well be the case that economic forecasting can be a victim of its own success, leading to a strange type of confirmation bias -- plainly, if the ESRI predicts a recession in 2020, and this triggers the Government to implement policy changes which stimulate economic growth, then a superficial retrospective analysis will say that the forecast was wrong, but that isn't necessarily a fair assessment of what was forecast, and how economic policy was subsequently adjusted. In all likelihood, this is why UK GDP growth following the Brexit Referendum was not as bad as was originally forecast.

The last sentence seems nonsensical to me, since the government in the U.K. has famously done nothing to prepare for Brexit. It would be fairly obvious, by the way, if economic projections were so fine tuned that when they informed government policy recessions were avoided.

That wasn’t clear pre 2008, not from the official economists in Ireland. It was all “soft landings”. The best bet was the journalists including the guy you disparaged a few posts back, and he was dismissed by “real economists”.

Therefore, your claim that "economics predictions are generally useless" is, frankly, a fairly daft generalisation. It is true that cataclysmic events like the Great Recession were not widely predicted -- extrinsic and intrinsic unpredictbility are difficult and pernicious realities that are a natural consequence of complex information sets.

Orthodox economic modelling techniques like those used by the ECB, the IMF might be described as 'mean reversion' models which means that when the equilibrium mean changes (house prices, unemployment figures, equity prices -- whatever), the model pushes the freocast backwards to the historical mean. The greater the break, the more unpredictable this is. Economists know this, nobody denies this, so it's a bit contrived when people throw their hands in the air and attempt to consign economics to the dustbin.

This is as useful as a meteorology in a country that’s normally sunny and 20c, but occasionally has devastating floods. All that the meteorologists in this country can predict is it that it will probably be sunny tomorrow, which anybody can do, and that someday it will rain, but everybody knows that too since it always does rain eventually. Predicting when it rains, which is the most important thing this science could do for society is beyond it, explaining why it rained when it did is never clear either, and subject to ideological disputes.

Economic forecasting isn't perfect. Nobody is saying it is. But that isn't a sufficient reason to express some kind of irrational dislike or distrust of/ towards such a broad field of human endeavour. After all, the vast majority of economists do not engage in macroeconomic forecasting at all.

Ok then, macro economic forecasting is bunk.

(By the way a scientific response to 2008 would be to abandon the theories that didn’t predict it rather than lock down on them and blame populists or journalists who got it right for being the charlatans).

Just watched the two Hitchins debate there now..

Yeah, Peter is definitely the deeper thinker.. Christopher was a bit slicker perhaps, and more manipulative of the crowd.. People like him may appear to win the debate, but rely on manipulating people's perceptions as opposed to having a better actual argument..

On the Peterson Zizek debate.. really, it was badly structured..The format didn't lend itself to a proper conversation.. One did develop for the second half of it..and they agreed on quite a bit..It was tragic to see people misrepresent what happened with the 'Our guy totally won the debate' in it's aftermath..

JRant

Hitchen's shone a very bright spotlight on the Clinton's as well. I would have loved to hear him when Hilary was running for POTUS. He really really disliked both of them and called them out when it wasn't the fashionable thing to do.

I didn't agree with his pro-war stance and he seemed to buy into the jingoistic rhetoric that slot of US immigrants seem to espouse. That said, he would definitely be very high on the list of 10 people I'd love to bring to a dinner party.

Ardillaun

Emigrating to America was an odd choice for a very English socialist to make and he never fully reconciled himself to the compromises required. The invasion of Iraq stands out as something he might not have so recklessly cheered on had he stayed at home.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Just watched the two Hitchins debate there now.. Yeah, Peter is definitely the deeper thinker.

Not on any subject I have watched him discuss or engaged with him on.

His position on homosexuality seems to be based on nothing but his own visceral disgust and homophobia for example. And do not even get him started on gay parenting for which he never provides a shred of evidence to back up his position, he just KNOWS it is wrong.

He has issues with abortion and even birth control as I recall for reasons that make some of the most nonsense posters on boards.ie look like they know what they are talking about on the subject.

And there is not a shred of anything approaching nuance in his position on recreational drugs. He has had errors and misrepresentations in his position there pointed out many many times yet he was on television only this year I think trotting out the exact same errors and lies again.

He is also against sex education declaring that sex education CAUSES teen pregnancy and STD. No evidence on offer for that from him of course. And he likened teachers wanting to teach kids about sex to how you would call the police if a stranger on the street started talking to your children about their genitals. Calling them "state groomers" who just want to "talk dirty to primary school pupils" in order to "groom the young for sex".

And if memory serves..... I might be mixing him up with someone else on this one..... he said women who were raped should get no anonymity at all and that a woman's place is in the home and they should not have access to the pill.

And of course he is a Vaccine denier and last time I checked was stilling taking Andrew Wakefield seriously and defending him.

His entire approach to religion is there must be a god because it feels right to him and sure without god people do not give their seat to anyone on a bus or some such nonsense. And quite often in many of the subjects I mention above he always tries to find some conspiracy against religion in EVERY topic. For example sex education of children? "They wish to destroy childhood innocence and smash the remaining influence of religion. They wish to alienate children from their parents.". He is one of those "equal time for creationism" and "Darwanism is all about things no one was there to witness" and "cant anyone see the difference between micro evolution and the macro evolution darwanists believe in" and "gaps in the fossil record" kind of types as well.

Deep or deeper thinker? I am not seeing it anywhere. Perhaps he is good on some OTHER subjects I have not observed him in? Or perhaps there was some "deep thinking" in the debate you refer to which I missed in the two times I watched it and.... seemingly..... could find not a single coherent or valid argument from him AT ALL on the subject?? Help me out here. I am agog.

Tony EH

Ardillaun wrote: »

Emigrating to America was an odd choice for a very English socialist to make and he never fully reconciled himself to the compromises required.

You have to go back to 80's Britain to understand why he did that. I think he just fell out of love with the politics of Britain at the time. A country where working class people kept voting for Thatcher, even when it was against their best interests.

Plus, he was focusing on a lot of American politics as well and writing copious amounts of Reagan, Kissinger, etc. More so than the material he was producing about affairs back home.

In the end he feel out of love with the US too.

Ardillaun wrote: »

The invasion of Iraq stands out as something he might not have so recklessly cheered on had he stayed at home.

I don't know. While he was a cheerleader for Bush, he was also a cheerleader for Blair. Two of the most unlikely political figures for him to be so generous toward.

It'll always be a curious blot, on what was generally a very solid output from any writer, for a man of Hitchens' convictions to have sided, so unequivocally, with people who he would have called "war criminals" several years before. I mean if he can achieve the level of opprobrium that reserved for Henry Kissinger (rightly so), then I find it impossible to reconcile his pass for Bush and Blair with that.

Ardillaun

I suspect he went to America partly to be closer to the action, where the decisions were really made. It was odd that as someone who once aimed to transform the economic order, he didn't take a serious interest in economics. And did he ever master a foreign language?

Didn't know Peter Hitchens was an anti-vaxxer. Such opinions matter more than most as they may end up killing children.

AlphabetCards

Ardillaun wrote: »

I suspect he went to America partly to be closer to the action, where the decisions were really made. It was odd that as someone who once aimed to transform the economic order, he didn't take a serious interest in economics. And did he ever master a foreign language?

Didn't know Peter Hitchens was an anti-vaxxer. Such opinions matter more than most as they may end up killing children.

He's not an anti vaxxer. He has clearly said he was against the triple vaccine, and preferred the use of three individual ones, as they had higher uptake and were trusted more by the public. His beef was that the NHS was cutting corners financially.