Socio-Economic Impact of the LHC

This is an interesting analysis of the impact of the LHC, especially in terms of economics.

I think many politicians and the general public do not realize that even for something that is built to study something that appears to be esoteric and no direct and immediate application, there can be immediate benefits socially and economically.

That is why I continue to be surprised and appalled that the US continue to not "care" about their loss in having any kind of high-energy physics particle collider on their soil anymore. This is especially puzzling in light of the fact that other parts of the world are seriously pursuing having such experiments within their borders, even if it is under an international collaboration. Certainly China is pursuing having such facilities, and Japan just announced the start of an electron-positron collider. As far as I'm aware of, Japan is the leading contender for hosting the International Linear Collider (ILC), something that Fermilab has also been pursuing.

But with the devastating budget issues in the US, this is looking to be very bleak. People seem to only see the money being spent on such facilities, without realizing the significant impact not only on the intellectual aspect of it, but the economic impacts, both short-term and long-term. An analysis done in this preprint may not make it to the people who hold the power, but it is certainly there to be seen.

Zz.

The Difference Between Cats And Dogs

I'm sure many of you have noticed this, but have you sat down and really analyze it? Or maybe in my case, over-analyzing it?

A bunch of friends and I were sitting around and just talk (y'know, the stuff you do face-to-face and doesn't involve moving your fingers over a virtual keyboard). Of course, the conversation went over various topics of politics, the economy, etc...etc. At some point, it inevitably meandered into science, and physics in particular, since everyone there knew I am a physicist. It was when we got to that point that I noticed how the nature of the conversation changed.

We were comfortable with just talking when we were discussing politics, etc. But when we got to physics, we had to bring out several sheets of paper and started to either do sketches, or in my case, having to write simple, basic equations and numbers. This shouldn't be surprising because sketching something in physics is often the simplest and most direct way to demonstrate or explain something. We physicists, engineers, and other scientists tend to grab almost anything we can get (napkins, crumpled papers, etc.) when we sit and talk about what we do. Even in school, the way different subjects are taught can be evident. I remember being in a literature class where the instructor barely wrote anything on the board. This is unheard of in a math, physics, etc. class where it is not uncommon for the instructor to need several boards, or had to erase the one board over and over again throughout an entire class session.

I can't help thinking that, among other things, this signifies clearly the differences between one type of discipline versus another. While certain the field of economics, politics, etc. have more exact components, it is interesting that we all find that we can simply just talk verbally about it to get out point across... or can we? On the other hand, a STEM subject often requires illustrations, rudimentary calculations, etc. when we discuss things. I certainly find it significantly easier with a pen and paper to illustrate various topics that are being discussed.

So that led me to consider why that is so. Is it because there's a lot more "ambiguity" when we discuss politics and economics and other social matters? Are they more qualitative in nature? Is the discussion of STEM subject more well-defined and more quantitative? One example I have is the a topic of discussion that we had about politics and the issue of cutting taxes. This is a popular topic when there is an election coming. It takes no knowledge of anything to say that one wants to cut taxes. Yet, the issue of "by how much" and "how did you arrive at that figure" very seldom enters into any form of public discussion. It is as of the public is either incapable of understanding the details of such issue, or they don't have the patience to pay attention into such boring stuff.

We all want to pay less taxes! Who wouldn't? But we also depend on many services provided by various parts of the government, be it local or federal. One should not just say one is going to cut taxes, because frankly, saying just that, to me, is idiotic! One can cut it by $1 and that would have been a tax cut. Rather, I want to hear answers to : (1) by how much are you going to cut such-and-such taxes (2) how did you come up with that number (3) what were your assumptions that you used to arrive at that number (i.e. you must have made some estimates on what it would cost to provide the necessary services, and how much revenue you'd exact to make in that fiscal year)? etc.. etc. In other words, there are PLENTY of details that has to be revealed beyond just saying that you want to cut taxes. Otherwise, that statement is really empty and meaningless, and might even be totally irrelevant.

But this is usually missing from many political discussions, and it may even be something that the public simply don't care to hear, especially if they can be seduced by just sound bites. A lot of discussion in this area are often simply statements made without a lot of justification, and even if there were, they were mainly anecdotes. To me, this is why discussion on such topics can often be done verbally, because they are mainly "abstract", qualitative ideas (i.e. what goes up, must come down) without diving into the details (i.e. when and where it comes down).

But then you could turn around and ask me "But ZapperZ, isn't this how science articles and news are also done? I seldom seen pictures or number to explain the science that is being reported."

That is true, but that is because scientists and science writers (who are often not scientists themselves) have learned to communicate more effectively with the public, i.e. we can't bore then with the details and the numbers if we want to get their attention. Instead, we have to use bells and whistles, and we must be perky and superficial. But in my case, I find that being superficial and qualitative were sufficient in my discussion on political and social matters, but it wasn't sufficient when I had to answer a question on why centrifugal force is a "fictitious force". In fact, I had to get up from my chair and had to illustrate certain things by acting it to be able to get the message across. I didn't have to do anything close to that to discuss the latest local election in my area.

So maybe there is an inherent differences in these two board areas that can't be changed or eliminated, very much like dogs and cats. But I've seen dogs and cats get along very well and learn from each other. And certainly while those in STEM areas are learning how to communicate better to the public, and those in politics, economics, and social science are applying more quantitative aspects to their studies, are the public aware of such differences and how they could learn from it to look internally on how they analyze and conclude something? Have they looked at the differences between dogs and cats deeply enough beyond just the superficial level?

I don't know.

Zz.

Psychophysics Is Psychobabble?

This is a spot-on article on the seemingly fashionable practice nowadays to make some quantitative description of various ideas in social science.

Psychophysics secretly dominates our social sciences. Such physics-ing often improves experimental practice, but its mathematical methods face new challenges. As every infant knows, but too many scientists ignore, people aren’t biological billiard balls.

I'd go even further and say that people aren't even quantum balls.

Clearly, people are subject to the laws of physics. But nothing in physics chooses. Physics needs no strategies or game theory. Its main business is mechanical causation. Physics has no future. Like the best Buddhists, it feels only the forces of the present. Human psychology is different from physics precisely because it evolved to weigh and choose between forces from different possible futures.

Physics developed in situations like this: Everything of type X always does Y under conditions Z, where X, Y and Z are mathematically related. And simple scenarios such as: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Some people behaviors are like that. But many are not.

And I've lost count how many times I've seen discussion on the economy or in politics that kept on using various physics terms such as "every action there must be a reaction" in trying to justify or strengthen their arguments.

This topic is no different than the "Physics Envy" topic that I've posted quite a while back. The problem with adopting physics concepts in describing areas involving human actions and interactions is not just based on what has been said here in this article, but also the fact that many of the people who are adopting these physics concepts are not physicists, and have only a very superficial understanding of what they are adopting (think Deepak Chopra). So they may be using the same words and phrases, but they are severely bastardizing the concept.

Zz.

Why Econophysics Will Never Work

First we have the issue of the debate about the differences between Economics and Econophysics. Then there's an argument on why Economics will never be like Physics. Now comes an argument on why Econophysics will never work!

The markets are not physical systems. They are systems based on creating an informational advantage, on gaming, on action and strategic reaction, in a space that is not structured with defined rules and possibilities. There is feedback to undo whatever is put in place, to neutralize whatever information comes in.

The natural reply of the physicist to this observation is, “Not to worry. I will build a physics-based model that includes feedback. I do that all the time”. The problem is that the feedback in the markets is designed specifically not to fit into a model, to be obscure, stealthy, coming from a direction where no one is looking. That is, the Knightian uncertainty is endogenous. You can’t build in a feedback or reactive model, because you don’t know what to model. And if you do know – by the time you know – the odds are the market has changed. That is the whole point of what makes a trader successful – he can see things in ways most others do not, anticipate in ways others cannot, and then change his behavior when he starts to see others catching on.

It will be interesting to see if the writer has actually read Christophe Schinckus AJP's paper (my guess is he hasn't), and if Schinckus has a response to this.

The question whether something works or is valid in field of studies such as economics, social science, politics, etc. is rather interesting. In the physical sciences, there's usually no ambiguity because we can either test it out, or go look for it. Something works when what it predicts can be observed and reproducible. So how does one determines if the various principles and models in economics, social science, politics, etc. are valid and do work? Simply based on previous data and observation that somehow fit into the model? But as this writer has stated, there's no model to fit because the model keeps changing due to such model-changing feedback. It appears that the whole field is more based on "intuition" than on any rational reasoning.

If that's the case, then it truly isn't a science but more of an art. So why do people who graduate with a degree in economics, social "science", or politics, sometime get a "Bachelor of Science" degree?

Zz.

Another Sokal Hoax?

This is a rather fun (or frustrating) op-ed piece. The writer gave a good brief introduction to the infamous Sokal Hoax. This was done in context to a letter-to-the-editor that he came across which he humorously imagine as being Alan Sokal writing another of his hoax, but this time, as a letter to the editor.

All this came back to me the other day on reading the letters column of the simple daily newspaper I write for, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, which is much too workaday to be confused with a highfalutin academic journal. This letter, too, seemed to view reality, facts, and all that objective folderol as a mere historical construct that needs to be brushed away so the young can be properly educated/indoctrinated. Or as the writer explained:

"Indeed, science is not an objective enterprise. It is greatly influenced by power, culture, race, gender and ethnicity. Biologist Ruth Hubbard says that facts are invented, not discovered; facts are not necessarily facts forever, as shown by the constant change in dogma in biology as new data are obtained."

Beautiful. This guff is still widespread, apparently, having spread far beyond the ivory tower, like so much smog. Two plus two equals four only because we’re told so. The germ theory of disease is but a philosophical construct. It all depends on what we’re taught, and since there are fashions in science as in all human endeavors, then science itself is only fashion — a culturally agreed-upon illusion, a bourgeois plot, as ever changeable as mere fact.

Precious!

Of course, on the serious side of it, it is sad that there are now part of the general public that somehow holds that silly view. I often wonder if these people have ever done a proper science experiment. They don't realize that a subjective idea cannot make reproducible results consistently. This is one reason why many do not think that economics is a science. I often want to ask them to cite an example the last time they put their lives on something that is based on a subjective, social construct. After all, that's what they do everyday with science.

Zz.

The "Voodoo Science" of Brain Imaging

This certainly came out of nowhere. Since I am not an expert is this area (I know quite a bit about NMR/MRI, but not how it is applied in brain imaging), I will only cite the webpage and, I'm sure, we'll hear more about this in the coming months when many authors get to send in their rebuttals. Still, the paper cited is really rips apart many social science studies on human interaction/responses and the corresponding correlations with brain activities as mapped via fMRI.

The new paper (to be published in Perspectives on Psychological Science but available here) is called “Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience,” which gives you a pretty good idea of its argument. Basically, the authors noticed that a lot of papers in social neuroscience that use brain imaging were reporting correlations between brain activity and social/emotional behavior or thoughts that looked too good to be true or, even, mathematically possible (kind of like the years of steady investment returns that Bernie Madoff reported). So the scientists, led by Edward Vul of MIT and Harold Pashler of the University of California, San Diego, picked 54 such studies, many of them published in prominent journals such as Science and Nature, and wrote to the authors, basically asking how they managed to get such impressive correlations.

More than half admitted using a statistical strategy that, write Vul and his colleagues, “grossly inflates correlations, while yielding reassuring-looking scattergrams.” Other statistical snafus, they say, “likely created entirely spurious correlations in some cases,” and they call on social neuroscientists who use fMRI to reanalyze their raw data “to correct the scientific record.”

This could almost be as embarrassing for Social Science as the Alan Sokal hoax in "Social Text"!

Zz.