Various web links I found to be of interest recently.
By fetishising mathematical models, economists turned economics into a highly paid pseudoscience
Every economist I interviewed agreed that conflicts of interest
were highly problematic for the scientific integrity of their field
- but only tenured ones were willing to go on the record. 'In
economics and finance, if I'm trying to decide whether I'm
going to write something favourable or unfavourable to bankers,
well, if it's favourable that might get me a dinner in Manhattan
with movers and shakers,' Pfleiderer said to me. "I've written
articles that wouldn't curry favour with bankers but I did that
when I had tenure."
...
Economists who rationalise their discipline's value can be
convincing, especially with prestige and mathiness on their side. But
there's no reason to keep believing them. The pejorative verb
'rationalise' itself warns of mathiness, reminding us that we
often deceive each other by making prior convictions, biases and
ideological positions look 'rational', a word that confuses
truth with mathematical reasoning. To be rational is, simply,
to think in ratios, like the ratios that govern the geometry of
the stars. Yet when mathematical theory is the ultimate arbiter of
truth, it becomes difficult to see the difference between science
and pseudoscience. The result is people like the judge in Evangeline
Adams's trial, or the Son of Heaven in ancient China, who trust
the mathematical exactitude of theories without considering their
performance - that is, who confuse math with science, rationality
with reality.
Contrary to what one unrepresentative study found, the city's workers are actually benefiting from the wage hike.
There are, of course, naysayers. A recent University of Washington study argued that Seattle's wage hike would actually hurt workers overall because an hourly increase would be offset by a reduction of workers' hours and decreased employment. But IRLE researchers and others challenged that study as excessively limited in scope, based on an unrepresentative sample of workers. The Berkeley researchers contend that their analysis focuses on material impacts in a more representative sector.
Probably an example of how one's politics can influence your conclusions.
Belief is the oldest medicine known to man.
The family of placebo effects ranges from the common sense to some head scratchers.
Hospitals and pharmacies are required to toss expired drugs, no matter how expensive or vital. Meanwhile the FDA has long known that many remain safe and potent for years longer.
The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at least a
half-century, when the FDA began requiring manufacturers to add this
information to the label. The time limits allow the agency to ensure
medications work safely and effectively for patients. To determine
a new drug's shelf life, its maker zaps it with intense heat and
soaks it with moisture to see how it degrades under stress. It
also checks how it breaks down over time. The drug company then
proposes an expiration date to the FDA, which reviews the data to
ensure it supports the date and approves it. Despite the difference
in drugs' makeup, most "expire" after two or three years.
...
Pharmacists and researchers say there is no economic "win"
for drug companies to investigate further. They ring up more
sales when medications are tossed as "expired" by hospitals,
retail pharmacies and consumers despite retaining their safety
and effectiveness.
...
A 2006 study of 122 drugs tested by the program showed that
two-thirds of the expired medications were stable every time a lot
was tested. Each of them had their expiration dates extended, on
average, by more than four years, according to research published
in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences.
When properly analyzed with better data and closer attention to detail, it becomes quite clear that US healthcare spending is not astronomically high for a country of its wealth.
Democracy is rising, but not the good kind.
Zakaria's piece made an important distinction between democracy and liberalism, constructs that are often conflated. Democracy is a process for choosing leaders; it's about popular participation. To say that a state is democratic is to say little about how it is actually governed.
What kinds of sex one has varies enormously over time, as does with what kinds of and how many people. We can see this over big periods of history and within living memory in our own culture.