'Our Economic Delusions on Predictions, Money': Mervyn King former head of the Bank of England

 

The Epidemic of Bogus Science

 Anjana Ahuja in The FT

The 1996 paper is now legendary in academic circles. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, penned by the mathematician Alan Sokal, was published in a cultural-studies journal. It claimed that physical reality was a social and linguistic construct. 

It was a floridly written spoof: a jargon-heavy, plausible-sounding parody designed to pander to the biases of lazy reviewers and expose flaws in the academic enterprise. The bogus paper, targeting preening postmodernist intellectuals pontificating on scientific matters, confirmed the suspicions of Sokal — now at University College London — that the canon of human knowledge was vulnerable to rogue infiltration.  

The hoax seems comically quaint today compared with the fraud crisis plaguing science journals. This week, the publisher Wiley announced it would close 19 journals, some of which had been linked to large-scale research fraud. In the past two years, according to reports, it has retracted more than 11,000 papers. Wiley and other publishers, such as Springer Nature, are battling an epidemic of fakery. 

But battle it they must. Without due diligence, science may suffer a reputational hit. With so many scientific challenges ahead — climate change, artificial intelligence, energy security, pandemics — it is a loss of trust humanity can ill-afford.  

Scholarly publishing is surprisingly lucrative, worth about $28bn annually worldwide. While top journals charge hefty subscriptions, others will publish, subject to peer review, for a fee. That system feeds off a “publish or perish” research culture, with academics rated for grants, tenure and promotion according to how often they publish and how frequently they are cited. 

The result is a feverishly competitive climate where authorship is a commodity, now brazenly touted on the open market. Nick Wise, an engineering researcher at Cambridge university, collates adverts by so-called authorship brokers and posts them on X under the handle @author_for_sale. 

In a 2022 interview with Retraction Watch, a website that monitors papers under suspicion (for unintended errors as well as fraud), Wise itemised how brokers hook up with unscrupulous academics: “There’s this entire economy, ecosystem of Facebook groups, WhatsApp groups, Telegram channels selling authorship for papers, selling citations, selling book chapters, selling authorship of patents.” All pollute the knowledge pool. 

Authors, of course, need papers to put their names to. This is where the “paper mill” comes in, an industrial-scale operation that often uses AI to churn out papers en masse (many such mills are based in China). These are then submitted to multiple journals in the hope that some will slip past overworked reviewers.  

Investigators use fraud-busting software to spot defective offerings, such as the “tortured phrases” spat out by AI-generated papers to fool plagiarism detectors. AI becomes “counterfeit consciousness”; breast cancer is mangled into “bosom peril”. Other red flags include unlikely author collaborations; irrelevant reference lists; and clusters of papers that cite each other incestuously. “My hunch is that most fraud goes undetected,” Wise told me. 

Publishing companies, meanwhile, are opening fraud departments and trying to trap perpetrators who submit identical papers. But it is a perpetual struggle: brokers are wording their adverts more coyly; AI is writing more convincing papers. 

As Sokal correctly noted in his 2008 book Beyond the Hoax, preserving the integrity of science is an existential matter. “Clear thinking, combined with a respect for evidence . . . are of the utmost importance to the survival of the human race in the twenty-first century,” he wrote. This is an arms race that the science sleuths must win.

Economists had a dreadful 2023

From The Economist 

Spare a thought for economists. Last Christmas they were an unusually pessimistic lot: the growth they expected in America over the next calendar year was the fourth-lowest in 55 years of fourth-quarter surveys. Many expected recession; The Economist added to the prognostications of doom and gloom. This year economists must swap figgy pudding for humble pie, because America has probably grown by an above-trend 3%—about the same as in boomy 2005. Adding to the impression of befuddlement, most analysts were caught out on December 13th by a doveish turn by the Federal Reserve, which sent them scrambling to rewrite their outlooks for the new year.

It is not just forecasters who have had a bad year. Economists who deal in sober empirical work have also had their conclusions challenged. Consider research on inequality. Perhaps the most famous economic studies of the past 20 years have been those by Thomas Piketty and his co-authors, who have found a rising gap between rich and poor. But in November a paper finding that after taxes and transfers American incomes are barely less equal than in the 1960s was accepted for publication by one of the discipline’s top journals. Now Mr Piketty’s faction is on the defensive, accusing its critics of “inequality denial”.

Economists have long agreed that America would be richer if it allowed more homes to be built around popular cities. There is lots of evidence to that effect. But the best-known estimate of the costs of restricting construction has been called into question. Chang-Tai Hsieh of the University of Chicago and Enrico Moretti of the University of California, Berkeley, found that easing building rules in New York, San Francisco and San Jose would have boosted American gdp in 2009 by 3.7%. Now Brian Greaney of the University of Washington claims that after correcting for mistakes the true estimated effect is just 0.02%. If builders disagreed as wildly about roof measurements, the house would collapse.

Think social mobility in America is lower than it was in the freewheeling 19th century, when young men could go West? Think again, according to research by Zachary Ward of Baylor University. He has updated estimates of intergenerational mobility between 1850 and 1940 to account for the fact that past studies tended to look only at white people, as well as correcting other measurement errors. It now looks as if there is more equality of opportunity today than in the past (albeit only because the past was worse than was thought).

A rise in suicides, overdoses and liver disease has reduced life expectancy for white Americans. Angus Deaton and Anne Case of Princeton University popularised the idea that these are “deaths of despair”, rooted in grimmer life prospects for those without college degrees. But economists have been losing faith in the idea that overdoses, which are probably the biggest killer of Americans aged 18-49, have much to do with changes in the labour market. New research has instead blamed the carnage on simple proximity to smuggled fentanyl, a powerful opioid.

Other findings are also looking shaky. The long decline in the prestige of the once-faddish field of behavioural economics, which studies irrationality, continued in 2023. In June Harvard Business School said it believed, after an investigation, that some of the results in four papers co-written by Francesca Gino, a behavioural scientist and phd economist, were “invalid”, owing to “alterations of the data”. (Ms Gino, who has written a book about why it pays to break rules, is suing for defamation the university and the bloggers who exposed the alleged fiddling.)

What lessons should be drawn from economists’ tumultuous year? One is that for all their intellectual discipline they are still human. Replicating existing studies and checking them for errors is crucial work.

Another lesson is that disdain for economic theory in favour of the supposed realism of empirical studies may have gone too far. After the global financial crisis of 2007-09, commentators heaped opprobrium on theorists’ common assumption that people make rational predictions about the world; gibes about an unrealistic, utility-maximising Homo economicus helped raise the status of behavioural economics. Yet rational-expectations models allow for the possibility that inflation can fall rapidly without a recession—exactly the scenario that caught out forecasters in 2023.

A last lesson is that economists should cheer up. The research that has been called into question this year inspired much pessimism about the state of modern capitalism. But a dodged recession, flatter inequality trends and less despair would all be good news. Perhaps the dismal science should be a little less so. ■

Review of The Vaccine War

 

Economics for Dummies 4: It's not the Figures Lying; but the Liars Figuring

 ChatGPT

The phrase "It's not the figures lying but the liars figuring" is a clever play on words that highlights the concept that deceptive or misleading information doesn't originate from the numbers themselves, but rather from the individuals who manipulate or interpret those numbers to suit their agenda. In other words, the problem isn't with the data itself, but with the people who present or analyze it dishonestly. Let's explore this idea further with several examples:

1. Political Manipulation: Imagine a politician using unemployment statistics to make a false claim about job growth during their term in office. They might present the figures in a way that only highlights a specific time frame or excludes certain groups from the calculation, making the situation seem better than it actually is. In this case, the figures themselves aren't lying; it's the politician who is manipulating the data to create a deceptive narrative.

2. 
   

3. Marketing Deception: A company might advertise a product as "80% fat-free," emphasizing the low-fat aspect while conveniently ignoring that the product is loaded with sugar and unhealthy additives. The numeric figure (80%) isn't lying, but the company is deliberately omitting important information to mislead consumers about the overall healthiness of the product.

4. 
   

5. Financial Misrepresentation: An investment advisor might use historical stock market data to convince potential clients that their investment strategy has consistently yielded high returns. However, they might conveniently leave out the years of losses or market crashes that occurred in between those successful periods. The data itself is accurate, but the omission of crucial information makes the overall representation deceptive.

6. 
   

7. Media Manipulation: A news outlet could present crime statistics for a particular neighborhood, emphasizing a recent decrease in reported crimes. However, they might not mention that the police have changed their reporting methods, leading to a potential undercount of certain crimes. Here, the figures are accurate, but the media outlet is framing the information to create a misleading impression.

8. 
   

9. Scientific Distortion: A study might be conducted on a new drug, and the researchers focus solely on the positive outcomes for a specific subgroup of participants while ignoring negative effects in a larger group. The statistics accurately reflect the results among the subgroup, but the study as a whole is presented in a way that distorts the overall effectiveness and safety of the drug.

10. 
    

11. Historical Revisionism: A historian could present data on a historical event, emphasizing aspects that support a particular narrative while downplaying or ignoring contradictory evidence. This selective interpretation of historical figures and events can shape public understanding in a biased or misleading way.

In each of these examples, the underlying data or figures might be accurate, but it's the intentional manipulation, selective presentation, or omission of relevant information that leads to deception. The phrase "It's not the figures lying but the liars figuring" serves as a cautionary reminder to critically evaluate the context, interpretation, and motivations behind any presentation of information.

---Some more examples

1. Political Spin: During an election campaign, a candidate might boast about reducing the budget deficit by 50% during their tenure as mayor. While this figure is accurate, they conveniently omit the fact that the deficit was much higher when they took office, and their policies actually contributed to a slight increase in the deficit in recent years. The numbers themselves are true, but the candidate is shaping the narrative to make their performance seem more impressive than it is.

2. 
   

3. Food Labeling Tricks: A cereal brand advertises that it contains "only 10g of sugar per serving," giving the impression of a healthy breakfast option. However, they fail to mention that the serving size is half of what an average person would eat, making the actual sugar content much higher. The figure presented is true, but it's manipulated to deceive consumers about the product's nutritional value.

4. 
   

5. Stock Market Deception: A stockbroker promotes a trading strategy by highlighting a series of successful trades that generated substantial profits over a short period. What they don't disclose is that these successes were part of a high-risk gamble that wiped out most of their clients' investments in the long run. The actual trade figures are accurate, but the broker is manipulating the narrative to attract clients without revealing the full context.

6. 
   

7. Cherry-Picked Research Findings: A pharmaceutical company publishes a study showing that their new medication has a higher success rate compared to a placebo. They omit the fact that the medication also has severe side effects in a significant number of cases. While the success rate data is true, the company is selectively presenting only the positive outcomes to create a favorable impression of the drug's effectiveness.

8. 
   

9. Climate Change Denial: Critics of climate change might point to a period of unusually cold weather to argue that global warming is a hoax. They ignore the broader trend of rising global temperatures over decades, which is supported by extensive scientific data. While the localized cold weather figures are accurate, their selective use distorts the larger reality of climate change.

10. 
    

11. Historical Manipulation: A country's government downplays the atrocities committed during a war, emphasizing instances where their military acted heroically while omitting documented cases of civilian casualties. This skewed presentation of historical figures and events seeks to shape a more favorable national narrative, despite the factual accuracy of the individual incidents mentioned.

12. 
    

The Science Delusion

 "Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn't know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence - evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn't get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn't hold onto medieval practices because they are tradition" Ricky Gervais. Discuss

Here's a response that includes examples that both support and contradict each claim of science:

1. "Science seeks the truth."

Science indeed seeks the truth, as demonstrated by discoveries such as the theory of gravity, which explains the attraction between objects. However, it is important to note that science is an ongoing process, and not all scientific claims necessarily lead to absolute truths. For example, in the past, scientists believed in the existence of ether as a medium for transmitting light, but subsequent research disproved this concept.

2. "And it does not discriminate."

While the scientific method itself does not discriminate, biases and discrimination can sometimes infiltrate the scientific community. Historically, women and minority scientists faced barriers to entry and recognition in certain fields. However, efforts are being made to address these issues and promote inclusivity and diversity within scientific research.

3. "For better or worse, it finds things out."

Science has led to numerous positive advancements, such as the development of vaccines that have eradicated diseases like smallpox. However, scientific discoveries can also have unintended negative consequences. For instance, the industrial revolution, driven by scientific advancements, contributed to environmental pollution and climate change, which have had detrimental effects on ecosystems and human health.

4. "Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn't know."

Science encourages humility, but scientists are not immune to biases or being overly attached to certain ideas. For example, the resistance to the concept of continental drift, proposed by Alfred Wegener in the early 20th century, persisted for decades before overwhelming evidence in the form of seafloor spreading and plate tectonics led to its acceptance.

5. "It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence - evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded."

Science relies on empirical evidence, but the interpretation of evidence can sometimes be influenced by personal biases or flawed methodologies. One example is the case of cold fusion, which gained attention in the 1980s as a potential new source of clean energy. However, subsequent studies failed to reproduce the initial results, leading to skepticism and the rejection of cold fusion as a viable scientific concept.

6. "It doesn't get offended when new facts come along."

While the scientific method is designed to be objective, scientists can exhibit resistance to new facts that challenge established theories. An example is the initial rejection of the idea that bacteria can cause stomach ulcers. Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren faced significant skepticism and even ridicule for their discovery, but eventually, their work was validated and led to a new understanding of the causes of ulcers.

7. "It embraces the body of knowledge."

Science indeed builds upon existing knowledge, but there can be cases where outdated or incorrect ideas persist due to various reasons. One example is the persistence of the concept of "vestigial organs" in human anatomy, which posited that certain organs had lost their original function over time. While some organs once thought to be vestigial have been reevaluated, others still remain controversial or have alternative explanations.

8. "It doesn't hold onto medieval practices because they are tradition."

Science aims to prioritize evidence-based reasoning, but there have been instances where certain traditional practices have persisted despite contradicting scientific evidence. An example is the continued use of certain alternative medicine practices that lack empirical support or have been debunked by rigorous scientific studies.

In conclusion, while science as a methodology strives for truth, objectivity, and progress, it is essential to acknowledge that human biases, limitations, and social factors can impact scientific endeavors. The scientific process is an ongoing journey of discovery, subject to refinement and revision as new evidence emerges and paradigms shift.