= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Separating the roles of theory and direct empirical evidence in belief formation: the examples of minimum wage and anthropogenic global warming - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (65)
No. The evidence for whether minimum wage laws produce unemployment is inconclusive. The recent studies showed no significant effect.
Being skeptical of long-range climate forecasting shouldn't lead you to believe that CO2 has no effect. It should lead you to believe that we can't quantify the effect. You widen your uncertainty interval instead of moving it's center.
If you want to focus on Bayesianism don't ask people whether they believe but ask them for a probability.
When I meant "supported through a wide range of lines of evidence" I was referring to the theory in its generality, not necessarily its application to the context at hand. So I meant that the theory of supply and demand on the whole is supported through several lines of evidence, not necessarily its application to the minimum wage issue (where the evidence alone does seem inconclusive). That was the point of the question.
Thanks for raising the issue, and sorry for the confusion I engendered.
The idea that supply and demand are a factor that can change some commercial interactions isn't controversial. Human psychology on the other hand is quite complex. There is good evidence that most humans aren't completely rational utility optimizers.
Widen?
Yes, I corrected the error.