Moron Notes

The 1991 film "Guilty By Suspicion" is playing on DishTV tonight. Their program notes go like this, en toto:

"In a 1950's witch hunt, the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklists a Hollywood director."

There you have it. Thousands of years of superstition vindicated in a fifteen-word blurb for a movie. Witches are real, after all.

"Econometrics" Is Bullshit

To: Donald Luskin

It was only this morning that I found these words at mises.org:

"It is a mistake to use, as journalists and some economists do, statistics without logic but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics."

Reading your correspondent Seater's words, I was struck with this:

"Science never proves anything; it only fails to disprove."

In the very next paragraph, he says:

"In that case, I challenge you to provide a superior method of establishing knowledge of any aspect of reality."

The thing that's curious to me is how people like this go about equating the skepticism that is necessarily implied in the first statement with what they also necessarily value as "knowledge" in the second statement. If we take the first statement seriously, then they are committing outright theft of a concept in the second, and they should be called on it.

I would presume that anyone competent to handle this discussion should be able to stipulate to the package of concepts contained in the statement: "The sun will rise tomorrow." What it means, of course, is a bunch of things like; the earth will rotate to a point where it will appear to any given observer at a given location as if the sun were separating from the horizon along a vertical axis. Something agreeably like that. Now, if an assertion like "science never proves anything; it only fails to disprove" means anything at all, then it must mean that the facts of physics which allow us to confidently look forward to tomorrow's sunrise are suspenseful. Note that this is not mere suspense over contingencies like whether a giant asteroid will come blasting along to knock us on our celestial asses, but whether the very standing of facts as facts merits human respect. That really is what it all must boil down to.

Having pointed out here, and very briefly, an anecdotal illustration in the long post-Enlightenment history of what I call "catatonic skepticism", let me point out something else very important:

I think you're missing something crucial when you finger the foolishness of "economists and journalists". The crucial thing is bureaucrats. Econometrics is a very handy device for diffusing the observations and principles of so-called "classical" economists, in order to carve out space for their technocratic machinations from the resulting confusion. The more doubt that these people can exploit, the more rationale for all their "exploring" and "experiments". There are serious political implications in econometrics. And I maintain that all this is a consequence of the deplorable state of epistemology over the past century or so: when there is no such thing as truth, then things like statistics will be pressed to service (such as it is), instead.

This is why Levitt has "breathed new life" into the bullshit. That book is a new line of credit extended to a desperately overdrawn account.

Now, see my subject header.

You say that econometrics "can be" a "valuable discipline". I won't argue that with you. What I say is that it should be kept in its place, which is: completely out of every discussion of "public policy". That's the "bullshit" that I'm talking about. A bit over forty years ago, now, Ayn Rand wrote:

"Political economy was, in effect, a science starting in midstream: it observed that men were producing and trading, it took for granted that they had always done so and always would -- it accepted this fact as the given, requiring no further consideration -- and it addressed itself to the problem of how to devise the best way for the 'community' to dispose of human effort."

It should be obvious to a blind person that econometrics has done yeoman's work in the cause. This is essentially because it doesn't have an ethical bone in its body of work.

This, above all, is my condemnation of Levitt and all like him.


Onward, then.

Word

"It is a mistake to use, as journalists and some economists do, statistics without logic but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics."

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, quoted by James Sheehan.

That, right there in thirty-one words, is the whole reason why "econometrics" is utter nonsense. Sheehan's comparison to the Austrians is obvious to anyone who has read them. He says:

"Taleb recognizes that man cannot be reduced to a homo economicus, always seeking to maximize some objectively defined value."

He is referring obliquely to modes of analysis which are always grasping for specific values useful to "models", etc. This is always vain. It is important, however, to point out that there is something objectively definitive in all this, which is the basic fact that human beings act for values. This is not congenial to the model-makers, but it is objectively true and it's as good as it gets.

This, I reject:

"We are faulty and there is no need to bother trying to correct our flaws."

Go find it in the context of Sheehan's article. What it really refers to is the fact of some peoples' disapproval of other peoples value decisions, which is what "public policy" is all about.

Blogmarks

"The Myth Of The Rule Of Law", by John Hasnas, and linked in lots of places lately.

"What is Wrong with Our Thoughts? A Neo-Positivist Credo", by David Stove, and e-mailed by Martin McPhillips.

"The Economics of Taxation", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

"The Rise of the Asshole Class"

"The law made the victim the criminal for daring to posses something that might confuse the police."

(Michael Gilson-De Lemos )

That's about the size of it. He's talking about things like a twelve year-old kid being arrested for possessing a bag of sugar.

"In a written statement, school district officals said, 'The dangers of illegal drugs and controlled substances are clear. Look-alike drugs and substances can cause that same level of danger because staff and students are not equipped to differentiate between the two.'"

Of course, it does no good to ask these rutabagas why they're "not equipped". It does no good to ask precisely because they're not equipped. We're talking about people whose brains have been removed by statute. They're not allowed to think, you see.

But that's not going to get in their way.

A Symbol And A Reality

"One of my roles at the Mozilla Foundation relates to copyright licensing."

That's the first sentence of the second paragraph of a notable article at The Times Online. And right off the bat, I'm just having the living shit irritated out of me.

Why is everybody always playing a "role"? What is with all this metaphoric foggery? The word called for here is "responsibilities". Those are what he discharges in the course of his work.

I want you to start paying attention to this, dear readers. Whenever you hear the word "role" dripping upon the scene, you can be sure, these days, that someone is perpetrating. They are nonsensifizing something that doesn't deserve it, and there is something of a psychoscreen between them and reality. To whatever degree it occurs, this is never good. And more of them are doing it all the time. They are living in a cloud of symbols where they should be grasping reality.

Beyond all that, Gervase Markham quotes this in his article:

"If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."

This comes from his correspondent, who is "a lady in the Trading Standards department of a large northern town". Try to understand this: what she is saying is that if Markham does his job the way his organization sees fit for him to do it, then there is at least that much less rationale for her job to exist. The presumptions of her position come into glaring relief. And she is, at root, asserting her command over the general project of human productivity.

What on earth could be more dangerous?

(link: Samizdata, which by the way, I've always thought is the best blog-name in the world.)