Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. A Meander: Prediction vs Prescription, Science, Engineering and the Meaning of Life

 

Purists love to talk about what is and is not a science. Clearly, for example, physics is a science, because it allows us to offer theories, and test them against data. And we learn from the results.

By way of contrast, economics or sociology or psychology are not sciences. Of course not! Those soft squishy subjects have no real predictive power after all, right?

Not so fast. Sure, physics will tell you, with impressive accuracy, what happens when a billiard ball hits another one. But if you replace the target billiard ball with a kitten, physics is not so helpful. And if we replace the kitten with a person, then physics has nothing at all useful to tell us.

On the other hand, some of those squishier subjects, albeit with large error bars, do have some predictive powers when it comes to people. When we scare people in a pandemic, we know some of the likely outcomes. We know how people tend to react to scarcity and plenty, how they change as a result of marriage or divorce. We don’t learn these things from physics, but we can learn them from the study of mankind through these softer “sciences.”

And aren’t people ultimately more interesting than billiard balls? After all, the physical world is at least partially deterministic. The more predictable the natural world is, the more boring it is. Billiard balls, writ large or small, are still inanimate forces acting on each other.

Of course, the physical world is not really deterministic, not all the way down or all the way up. And as we leave the realm of simple mechanics, we see that the parts wherein the “hard” sciences end up unable to give definitive answers at all, resembling distributive answers that look more like statistical spreads in sociology than Newtonian certainty. In other words, science stops telling us what will happen, and instead tells us what is more or less likely to happen!

Indeed, if you come right down to it, if “All Models are Wrong, but Some Models are Useful,” then there is another variation from the math-grounded physics down through chemistry to sociology: the error bars get larger. All answers to all predictive questions in every field end up offering a statistical range of answers. The difference between physics and sociology is found not in whether the operative models are predictive, but in how large the error bars are.

“Ah!” you might say. “But at least Science is falsifiable! That is what makes the difference!”

This sounds nice. But how falsifiable is physics, really? If 97 or 99% of the mass in your galactic model is not actually directly detectable at all but is instead measurable only by its assumed effects on other objects (see Matter: Dark), then where is the falsification?

Or take Climate Change. All the models have been wrong. None have been useful. Does that stop the Science Train from continuing to double-down on nonsense? Not so far.

There is no objective scientific discipline, free from human interference and biases. We might argue that this is because people are the practitioners of science. But we cannot be sure. After all, anything can be described in more than one way, so why should there be an “objective” way to describe a leaf? In a language not bounded by human models of physics and chemistry and biology and dendrology and even poetry, is there such a thing as a “leaf”? And if there is, does it even matter?

I would like to offer that the ideal scientific metric of “predictive authority” is itself a false goal since it can never be absolutely, 100%, no-wiggle-room-whatsoever- TRUE. We instead should be very happy with an engineering standard: Either it works, or it does not.

And one of the really cool things about engineering is that there is a natural constraint on wasted time: engineers have to, sooner or later, make something that someone else will pay for. That is the true measure of a “useful model.”

Creating new things is not scientific. Engineers care about what works, not what is True. Nor do engineers, unlike, say, mathematicians, often make things that are perfect, that can never be improved-upon. Instead, I offer that engineers are doing something much more open-ended and interesting: engineers always have to keep working and growing and improving. There is no “best for evermore” mousetrap or software program or packaging plant.

In engineering, there is a falsifiable check at all times: are people paying for your product? As any study of the history of technology shows, it is not simple to predict what will work – at least not in advance. This trend holds in absolutely every field, from the internal combustion motor to cooling technologies to software languages. Dozens of people built flying machines before the Wright Brothers, and even after Orville and Wilbur broke the barrier, the next iteration in aerospace engineering did not retain the Wright approach to controlling flight.

Engineering consists of betting on the future, using all the tools we have to hand. Those tools include the tools of the harder sciences, but they also require substantial teams comprised of a vast range of human talent. A new drug requires not just biologists, but lab techs and quality teams, lobbyists, regulatory experts, marketing… and all the support staff to support them as well as all the tools used in drug development, tests, approvals, production, and distribution. The result is companies that themselves resemble biological entities, possessing staggering capabilities, but at the cost (and even as a result) of complex and unpredictable systems and teams and individuals.

Predictive powers … your mileage will vary. On the other hand, I am personally entranced by prescriptive powers: the ability to create and shape and carve the future based on what we decide we want it to be.

There is, for example, no denying that without Elon Musk, electric cars would not be where they are now (and this is from a guy who thinks that electric cars will never compete, on a utilitarian valuation, with internal combustion-engined cars). Musk applied his vision and sold it to people. Nobody predicted Elon Musk.

Similarly, Steve Jobs (and other great visionaries) took this one step further: he did not give people what they needed. He TOLD people what they needed, and created entirely new markets for things that people now cannot live without – but somehow had functioned perfectly well without in the past. Coupled with a great engineering company, Jobs showed that his prescriptive vision could alter the course of human history. That is impressive.

Ultimately, it is the popularization of tools that enables maximal human prescriptive powers. Edison invented the phonograph, but he thought the purpose of a phonograph was to record last wills and testaments! It was everyone else who pioneered so many other uses for analog storage systems.

From a societal level down to the individual person, visionaries create everything from new drugs and software to personalized curtains. The modern age, with our unprecedented wealth and access to tools and the knowledge of how to use them, opens the gates of heaven for every person who dares look upward.

For me, the archetypal prescriptive tool is the Torah. The text does not tell us what the natural world is, or how to use an abacus. There are no predictive tools in the Torah. But as a prescriptive document, it forms the basis of Western Civilization. The Torah tells us how we can grow, how we are to build productive and constructive and beautiful relationships with each other, and with our Creator. It tells us to be holy, and then explains what holiness means.

If we think of our underlying religious presuppositions as guidance for our lives (e.g. Do we think our lives should have meaning and purpose? Can we seek to understand what that purpose can be?), then we can work to ask ourselves those questions and make something of ourselves. Not because the world (and certainly not humanity) is predictable, but because we each have the opportunity to help shape the future. And the sooner we all recognize and embrace this way of seeing the world, the better our tomorrow’s look.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 127 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dr. Bastiat Member

    Wow. That, my friend, is a big post. I need to go lie down for a moment.

    Fantastic stuff.

    • #1
    • October 20, 2020, at 3:31 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  2. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    How fast is this billiard ball going? Who are we going to hit with it? If you don’t have a candidate, I have a nomination. Actually, I can come up with a list.

    • #2
    • October 20, 2020, at 3:38 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  3. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe:

    “Ah!” you might say. “But at least Science is falsifiable! That is what makes the difference!”

    This sounds nice. But how falsifiable is physics, really? If 97 or 99% of the mass in your galactic model is not actually directly detectable at all, but is instead measurable only by its assumed effects on other objects (see Matter:Dark), then where is the falsification?

    Or take Climate Change. All the models have been wrong. None have been useful. Does that stop the Science Train from continuing to double-down on nonsense? Not so far.

    There is no objective scientific discipline, free from human interference and biases. We might argue that this is because people are the practitioners of science. But we cannot be sure. After all, anything can be described in more than one way, so why should there be an “objective” way to describe a leaf?

    Maybe a bit of Kuhn, but definitely a bit of William James. That’s good.

    Observation of a thing by looking at its effects (or lack thereof) does count. All science needs is for the effects to be a logical consequence of some theory about the thing.

    • #3
    • October 20, 2020, at 3:59 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    • #4
    • October 20, 2020, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Mark Camp Member

    iWe: Clearly, for example, physics is a science, because it allows us to offer theories, and test them against data.

    We disagree completely about everything in this article.

    In my view, one of the greatest achievements of von Mises’s work was outside of economics altogether. It was to demolish this still-popular idea that the Newtonian tradition of science was of a pursuit identified by its ability to make quantitative predictions about any arbitrarily complex system.

    As for economics, which was his main interest (philosophy of science was only a means to an end): It was only when economists abandoned this perversion of the Newtonian scientific method, and recognized that the true scientific method requires acceptance of all and only those facts which were known to be true (so-called “causal realism”), whether or not those true facts allowed this or that quantitative predictions about infinitely complex systems within its purview, that the science of economics was born.

    Your error is the same one that the Green Climate Change promoters make.

    • #5
    • October 20, 2020, at 4:22 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  6. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe: Or take Climate Change. All the models have been wrong. None have been useful.

    Why, you Science Denier!

    What nonsense can we next expect from you–appreciation for chloroquine?

    • #6
    • October 20, 2020, at 4:30 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. kedavis Member

    iWe: A Meander: Prediction vs Prescription, Science, Engineering and the Meaning of Life

    I know this one! I know this one!

     

    42!

     

    Oh by the way,

    There is, for example, no denying that with Elon Musk, electric cars would not be where they are now

    That should be WITHOUT Elon Musk…

    • #7
    • October 20, 2020, at 5:41 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. OmegaPaladin Moderator

    Nice argument for utilitarian philosophy.

    I disagree, obviously.

    Science falls largely in two categories – experimental and historical. Experimental science involves repeatable trials and the standard scientific method. When you get a surprising result, you test further. It is extremely reliable in developing a model for how the world works, allowing for both precision and accuracy. This is where falsification and prediction come into play – it can be directly tested.

    Historical science deals with things that cannot be repeated. Astronomy and origin of life are both examples. The focus moves to inference to the best explanation. T his can give solid insight into why things have occurred. Testing these theories involves looking for something that they cannot explain, or something that is not predicted when extrapolating to the future. Finding something inexplicable or unforeseen pushes the theory back. It is still scientifically rigorous, as we can debate climate science and other historical fields. When Climate change maniacs make yet another failed prediction, and then refuse to correct their theory, they are no longer scientific.

    Something can be a scientific theory, and also be wrong. Many older scientific theories have been debunked, and the very fact that they were debunked means that they are scientific. Ether theory did not cease being scientific when it was debunked.

    Things become non-scientific when nothing can debunk them. No refutation is possible. Climate change explains hot and cold, dry and wet, storms and calm. It is held as an article of faith. Matters of faith tend to be impervious to debunking. Anything can be rationalized. The problem with these concepts is that they do not tell us anything about the world. If climate change explains all possible paths, it predicts nothing.

    Science can shine light on reality, regardless of its usefulness. It remains tied to reality.

    • #8
    • October 20, 2020, at 6:15 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  9. Saint Augustine Member

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Nice argument for utilitarian philosophy.

    Close enough, but I’d say no. America Pragmatism is a bit different from Utilitarianism. iWe is more the former.

    • #9
    • October 20, 2020, at 6:18 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Clavius Thatcher

    Great post iWe, thanks for prompting many new thoughts.

    • #10
    • October 20, 2020, at 7:28 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    It is all about relationships, broad stroke. Nothing you can take to the bank (or the betting shop).

    • #11
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    There is, for example, no denying that with Elon Musk, electric cars would not be where they are now

    That should be WITHOUT Elon Musk…

    Thank you! Fixed.

    • #12
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:05 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    It is all about relationships, broad stroke. Nothing you can take to the bank (or the betting shop).

    Ok, it’s all about relationships. Why should that mean there’s no predictive tool–not even with all the predictions?

    Maybe the more important question is: What do you mean by “predictive tool”?

    (I’ve begun to suspect you have in mind some particular definition that would never occur to me from the words themselves.)

    • #13
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    Mark Camp

    We disagree completely about everything in this article.

    Good! I write to figure out what I think. And then it needs to be tested against the rocks of what other people think. After that bashing, I’ll have a much better sense of what is wrong and what might be going in the right direction.

    So I welcome a breakdown on where we disagree, if you have the time. Thank you!

    • #14
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:13 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  15. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe (View Comment):
    I write to figure out what I think.

    That might possibly explain rather a lot. I wish you had mentioned it before, and frequently.

    • #15
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:15 PM PDT
    • Like
    • This comment has been edited.
  16. Flicker Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    iWe: A Meander: Prediction vs Prescription, Science, Engineering and the Meaning of Life

    I know this one! I know this one!

    42!

    No! 56!

    (So there.)

    (Oops. My bad. It’s 54.)

    (“What do you get if you multiply six by nine? I’ve always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.”)

    • #16
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:34 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  17. Al French of Damascus Moderator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    https://www.bibleplaces.com/blog/2008/12/acoustics-of-mounts-gerizim-and-ebal/

    • #17
    • October 20, 2020, at 8:58 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. kedavis Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    iWe: A Meander: Prediction vs Prescription, Science, Engineering and the Meaning of Life

    I know this one! I know this one!

    42!

    No! 56!

    (So there.)

    (Oops. My bad. It’s 54.)

    (“What do you get if you multiply six by nine? I’ve always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.”)

    To paraphrase Slartibartfast, that’s where the whole story falls to the ground. “42” might theoretically be “the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.” But even granting that, either “what do you get if you multiply six by nine” OR “what do you get if you multiply six by seven” is a useless BS claptrap “question.”

    • #18
    • October 20, 2020, at 9:48 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  19. CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker Coolidge

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    It was only when economists abandoned this perversion of the Newtonian scientific method, and recognized that the true scientific method requires acceptance of all and only those facts which were known to be true (so-called “causal realism”), whether or not those true facts allowed this or that quantitative predictions about infinitely complex systems within its purview, that the science of economics was born.

    Can you re-state the meaning of the above paragraph?. There is some part of it I can’t translate into any meaningful concept.

    I especially got hung up when you said “the true scientific method requires acceptance of all and only those facts which were known to be true (so-called “causal realism”).” The word causal threw me. (I’ve never heard of causal realism before.)

    And I don’t mean to make you defensive – my brain is not working well tonight.

    If I can grasp what you are stating, this will be the third iconic reality that I will have to view from a different perspective. The first was when I found out that most of what people accepted as being Milton Friedman’s contribution to economic theory was a bastardized version of what his intention happened to be. Then very recently I found out that Schrodinger had devised the cat in the box dilemma to have a different significance than the one it ended up having.

     

    • #19
    • October 21, 2020, at 12:44 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  20. Saint Augustine Member

    CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker (View Comment):

    I especially got hung up when you said “the true scientific method requires acceptance of all and only those facts which were known to be true (so-called “causal realism”).” The word causal threw me. (I’ve never heard of causal realism before.)

    I do not know either. But I’m guessing he’s talking about the question of whether cause-and-effect really exists in the world outside the mind and is not just part of human perception. It’s something David Hume talked about. (Hume did believe in it, but thought we cannot know it for sure. More philosophy backstory for the serious nerd here; people who aren’t serious nerds can stay away, I reckon.)

    • #20
    • October 21, 2020, at 12:59 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  21. Flicker Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    iWe: A Meander: Prediction vs Prescription, Science, Engineering and the Meaning of Life

    I know this one! I know this one!

    42!

    No! 56!

    (So there.)

    (Oops. My bad. It’s 54.)

    (“What do you get if you multiply six by nine? I’ve always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.”)

    To paraphrase Slartibartfast, that’s where the whole story falls to the ground. “42” might theoretically be “the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.” But even granting that, either “what do you get if you multiply six by nine” OR “what do you get if you multiply six by seven” is a useless BS claptrap “question.”

    Yeah, I read the whole 5-book trilogy, but it was so long ago, I forgot a lot of it. Thanks for the clarification. And for the mention of ol’ Slarty.

    And by the way, whenever I think about economics I always think about the Golgafrinchans who used leaves as money, and hoarded it, until they crumpled and crumbled apart. Leaf-fiat currency never lasts.

    • #21
    • October 21, 2020, at 1:30 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. Doug Kimball Thatcher

    The laws and principals we employ to guide us through life are no doubt prescriptive and the Torah, I have no doubts, provides valuable guidance. It might even be an antidote to tyranny, but I’m afraid that it will never be tested as a prescription. People are irredeemable, that is, animate, physical beings, successful and resourceful, but we will eventually be just another fossil record. Nothing is forever. We may destroy ourselves or find ourselves vexed by catastrophe, but we will not last. The Torah my make some of us better, but it will not save us.

    • #22
    • October 21, 2020, at 5:41 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    The laws and principals we employ to guide us through life are no doubt prescriptive and the Torah, I have no doubts, provides valuable guidance. It might even be an antidote to tyranny, but I’m afraid that it will never be tested as a prescription. People are irredeemable, that is, animate, physical beings, successful and resourceful, but we will eventually be just another fossil record. Nothing is forever. We may destroy ourselves or find ourselves vexed by catastrophe, but we will not last. The Torah my make some of us better, but it will not save us.

    I think it is less important to be “saved,” than to live the best possible life we can. That means we learn to love, serve, help, build relationships with and honor others, and G-d. That’s enough for me! ‘-)

    • #23
    • October 21, 2020, at 5:53 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  24. Saint Augustine Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    The laws and principals we employ to guide us through life are no doubt prescriptive and the Torah, I have no doubts, provides valuable guidance. It might even be an antidote to tyranny, but I’m afraid that it will never be tested as a prescription. People are irredeemable, that is, animate, physical beings, successful and resourceful, but we will eventually be just another fossil record. Nothing is forever. We may destroy ourselves or find ourselves vexed by catastrophe, but we will not last. The Torah my make some of us better, but it will not save us.

    I think it is less important to be “saved,” than to live the best possible life we can. That means we learn to love, serve, help, build relationships with and honor others, and G-d. That’s enough for me! ‘-)

    Those are closer to the same thing than most people realize. N. T. Wright is good on this.

    (Why am I even talking? It’s too late for me to be on Ricochet!)

    • #24
    • October 21, 2020, at 5:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  25. Doug Kimball Thatcher

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    The laws and principals we employ to guide us through life are no doubt prescriptive and the Torah, I have no doubts, provides valuable guidance. It might even be an antidote to tyranny, but I’m afraid that it will never be tested as a prescription. People are irredeemable, that is, animate, physical beings, successful and resourceful, but we will eventually be just another fossil record. Nothing is forever. We may destroy ourselves or find ourselves vexed by catastrophe, but we will not last. The Torah my make some of us better, but it will not save us.

    I think it is less important to be “saved,” than to live the best possible life we can. That means we learn to love, serve, help, build relationships with and honor others, and G-d. That’s enough for me! ‘-)

    Of course I agree.

     

     

    • #25
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:01 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    I write to figure out what I think.

    That might possibly explain rather a lot. I wish you had mentioned it before, and frequently.

    Seriously? Doesn’t everyone do this?

    An adage I keep in mind – it was posted on the wall of my tenth grade English classroom:

    How do I know what I think until I read what I write?

    • #26
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:01 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. iWe Reagan
    iWeJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    It is all about relationships, broad stroke. Nothing you can take to the bank (or the betting shop).

    Ok, it’s all about relationships. Why should that mean there’s no predictive tool–not even with all the predictions?

    Maybe the more important question is: What do you mean by “predictive tool”?

    Something that predicts a future outcome with relatively tight error bars.

    In the long run, if Jews leave G-d, then bad things will happen. In the short run, there is nothing clearly causal.

    • #27
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:02 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    I write to figure out what I think.

    That might possibly explain rather a lot. I wish you had mentioned it before, and frequently.

    Seriously? Doesn’t everyone do this?

    I never did. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard mention it.

    • #28
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:04 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Saint Augustine Member

    iWe (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    It is all about relationships, broad stroke. Nothing you can take to the bank (or the betting shop).

    Ok, it’s all about relationships. Why should that mean there’s no predictive tool–not even with all the predictions?

    Maybe the more important question is: What do you mean by “predictive tool”?

    Something that predicts a future outcome with relatively tight error bars.

    In the long run, if Jews leave G-d, then bad things will happen. In the short run, there is nothing clearly causal.

    Have you figured out what you’re thinking yet? I haven’t.

    Is the sentence about the short run supposed to mean that there aren’t very tight error bars? And what is an error bar? Same thing as a margin of error?

    (If error bars are made with chocolate and nougat I think I would like them.)

    • #29
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:07 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  30. Saint Augustine Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe: are no predictive tools in the Torah.

    Not even the Mounts Gerizim and Ebal model of Torah-blessings and no-Torah-big-trouble?

    It is all about relationships, broad stroke. Nothing you can take to the bank (or the betting shop).

    Ok, it’s all about relationships. Why should that mean there’s no predictive tool–not even with all the predictions?

    Maybe the more important question is: What do you mean by “predictive tool”?

    Something that predicts a future outcome with relatively tight error bars.

    In the long run, if Jews leave G-d, then bad things will happen. In the short run, there is nothing clearly causal.

    Have you figured out what you’re thinking yet? I haven’t.

    Is the sentence about the short run supposed to mean that there aren’t very tight error bars? And what is an error bar? Same thing as a margin of error?

    (If error bars are made with chocolate and nougat I think I would like them.)

    You know, if your point is that the term “predictive tool” has some narrow definition that these particular predictions don’t fit, I have no objection.

    (I probably wouldn’t use the term the same way, but that doesn’t seem important.)

    Goodnight from my time zone.

    • #30
    • October 21, 2020, at 6:59 AM PDT
    • 1 like