Re:We're Incentivizing Bad Science
by leftyted on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:24PM
(#21391569)
A different framing of this is that politics is, more and more, intruding into science.
Paul Romer:
> Politics does not lead to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield a decision whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve factional interests than words that are analytical and precise.
> Science is a process that does lead to a broadly shared consensus. It is arguably the only social process that does. Consensus forms around theoretical and empirical statements that are true. In making these statements, a combination of words from natural language and tightly linked symbols from the formal language of mathematics encourages the use of words that are analytical and precise.
Re:We're Incentivizing Bad Science
by tobias3 on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @06:37PM
(#21392849)
He also left as World Bank chief economist after he complained that the "Ease of doing Business" index suspiciously went down for Chile while a socialist party was in power.
Paul Romer:
> Politics does not lead to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield a decision whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve factional interests than words that are analytical and precise.
> Science is a process that does lead to a broadly shared consensus. It is arguably the only social process that does. Consensus forms around theoretical and empirical statements that are true. In making these statements, a combination of words from natural language and tightly linked symbols from the formal language of mathematics encourages the use of words that are analytical and precise.
from https://paulromer.net/mathiness/Mathiness.pdf