"Not quite true" is irrelevant. An answer never need be fully true, and that is impossible. It only needs to be certain enough to accept a particular fact or take a particular action, and that's a far lower bar, contingent on the greatest information accessible in the moment, not any hypothetical ultimate. Knowledge is always and only justified belief.
More seriously, I think everyone being clear about their unprovable assumptions is the most important thing in social debate. That's the only way to know what kind of discussion you're having. Sometimes you're in a discussion like (a good faith) one about abortion. Some people just believe morally that an early fetus had similar moral status to a free ranging person. Others don't. Fundamentally that's not something you can reason or debate your way out of.
But we often aren't clear about our assumptions. The macro example the post starts with is a good one. Conservative 20th century economic "theory" was always a con. It started with the assumption that plutocracy with near absolute freedom for plutocrats was the ultimate good achievable by society. But it's practitioners weren't idiots so hid that and pretended their base assumptions were made up equations and that they were physicists simply uncovering the truth that crushing plutocracy is best.
To me, economics is not a science based on the laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. The first is based on the laws of the universe, the second on the laws of the universe, the second of the laws of the universe and physics, and the third on the first three sets of laws. Economics is based on assumptions of human behavior and its “laws” do not have a mechanistic explanation. For example, evolution results from “selection” of varieties of genes in the process of reproduction. Genes are selected for or against in the contest of the environment in which a species is reproducing. The environment does vary, as climate change and global warming clearly demonstrate (and also such things as the wars we are seeing today). The second laws of thermodynamics correctly predicts that entropy increases in closed systems. Life forms are semi-closed systems and thus have a 100% probability of ceasing to be organized enough to continue to exist, entity by entity. I.e., we all die, as predicted by the laws of physics and chemistry. As Kurt Vonnegut noted about human behavior, “so it goes,” That, unfortunately, does seem to be almost a law consistent with entropy.
I have applied the idea of first principles to politics and found two such principles, on which I built a scientific theory to solve political problems through what i call democracy engineering. If youre interested to write about it, contact me at troydavis@post.harvard.edu
In what aspect of Einstein’s theory were there any assumptions that were not true? A theory in physics is a detailed explanation of why things are as they are and that allows for accurate predictions to be made. If any prediction is found to not be true than there is something wrong with the theory and it needs to be modified. For over 100 years Einstein’s theory has been tested over and over and not a single prediction has failed the test. This week the theory’s prediction that large gravitational bodies “bend” light will be tested again. And the total solar eclipse will with almost 100% certainty be confirmed again. Newton’s theory of gravitation is not based on any incorrect assumptions. It is mathematically accurate, as is Einstein’s theory. Mathematics is the universal language of science and its theories. A theory in science is not a guess. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was not based on inaccurate guesses. It was based on factual observations. What it lacked at the time was the explanation for the mechanism of natural selection: what was the cause of the differences in traits and how were those differences stored and passed on? Today we know that DNA in genes can change (mutate) leading to changes in traits that may be selected for or against, i.e., increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a gene being passed on. Nothing in Darwin’s theory was based on a falsehood. An incomplete explanation yes, but nothing in the theory needed to be corrected, just expanded. The laws of the universe, such as the laws of gravitation or thermodynamics, etc., are immutable. Human laws are not. That’s why human laws lack the 100% predictably of settled scientific theories.
"Not quite true" is irrelevant. An answer never need be fully true, and that is impossible. It only needs to be certain enough to accept a particular fact or take a particular action, and that's a far lower bar, contingent on the greatest information accessible in the moment, not any hypothetical ultimate. Knowledge is always and only justified belief.
More seriously, I think everyone being clear about their unprovable assumptions is the most important thing in social debate. That's the only way to know what kind of discussion you're having. Sometimes you're in a discussion like (a good faith) one about abortion. Some people just believe morally that an early fetus had similar moral status to a free ranging person. Others don't. Fundamentally that's not something you can reason or debate your way out of.
But we often aren't clear about our assumptions. The macro example the post starts with is a good one. Conservative 20th century economic "theory" was always a con. It started with the assumption that plutocracy with near absolute freedom for plutocrats was the ultimate good achievable by society. But it's practitioners weren't idiots so hid that and pretended their base assumptions were made up equations and that they were physicists simply uncovering the truth that crushing plutocracy is best.
To me, economics is not a science based on the laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. The first is based on the laws of the universe, the second on the laws of the universe, the second of the laws of the universe and physics, and the third on the first three sets of laws. Economics is based on assumptions of human behavior and its “laws” do not have a mechanistic explanation. For example, evolution results from “selection” of varieties of genes in the process of reproduction. Genes are selected for or against in the contest of the environment in which a species is reproducing. The environment does vary, as climate change and global warming clearly demonstrate (and also such things as the wars we are seeing today). The second laws of thermodynamics correctly predicts that entropy increases in closed systems. Life forms are semi-closed systems and thus have a 100% probability of ceasing to be organized enough to continue to exist, entity by entity. I.e., we all die, as predicted by the laws of physics and chemistry. As Kurt Vonnegut noted about human behavior, “so it goes,” That, unfortunately, does seem to be almost a law consistent with entropy.
I have applied the idea of first principles to politics and found two such principles, on which I built a scientific theory to solve political problems through what i call democracy engineering. If youre interested to write about it, contact me at troydavis@post.harvard.edu
In what aspect of Einstein’s theory were there any assumptions that were not true? A theory in physics is a detailed explanation of why things are as they are and that allows for accurate predictions to be made. If any prediction is found to not be true than there is something wrong with the theory and it needs to be modified. For over 100 years Einstein’s theory has been tested over and over and not a single prediction has failed the test. This week the theory’s prediction that large gravitational bodies “bend” light will be tested again. And the total solar eclipse will with almost 100% certainty be confirmed again. Newton’s theory of gravitation is not based on any incorrect assumptions. It is mathematically accurate, as is Einstein’s theory. Mathematics is the universal language of science and its theories. A theory in science is not a guess. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was not based on inaccurate guesses. It was based on factual observations. What it lacked at the time was the explanation for the mechanism of natural selection: what was the cause of the differences in traits and how were those differences stored and passed on? Today we know that DNA in genes can change (mutate) leading to changes in traits that may be selected for or against, i.e., increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a gene being passed on. Nothing in Darwin’s theory was based on a falsehood. An incomplete explanation yes, but nothing in the theory needed to be corrected, just expanded. The laws of the universe, such as the laws of gravitation or thermodynamics, etc., are immutable. Human laws are not. That’s why human laws lack the 100% predictably of settled scientific theories.
In the parlance of our times I'd say first principles is code for narcissism in search of a path towards mass rent extraction. Maybe... 23% joking 😁