JoshuaZ comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong

9 Post author: arborealhominid 16 November 2012 06:37PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (259)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pragmatist 21 November 2012 09:20:47PM *  12 points [-]

The leap from "controlled experiments are not possible" to "one has to deduce from first principles" is huge and unsupported. The results of controlled experiments do not exhaust the available empirical evidence by a long shot. We have a lot of data about the effects of monetary policy from around the world. True, inferring causality from this data is not nearly as straightforward as inferring causality from a randomized controlled trial, but it's still a lot more reliable than deduction from first principles, I would think.

Think about how your argument sounds when applied to cosmological theories about the very early universe. We have a number of different theories that cannot be simultaneously right, and we cannot conduct controlled experiments. Would you endorse deduction from first principles in this instance as well?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 November 2012 09:23:25PM 5 points [-]

The leap from "controlled experiments are not possible" to "one has to deduce from first principles" is huge and unsupported.

Yes, whenever people try to make this sort of argument I have to wonder how they think we should do astronomy.

Comment author: Kal 23 November 2012 03:39:26PM 1 point [-]

Please see my reply above to pragmatist.

To add a bit, the rigor in monetary economics today is so far behind physics, it is not fair to compare the two subjects. It is an insult to Physics.