Recently, Tucker Carlson made the all-too-common mistake of suggesting that evolution by natural selection is an unproven idea because evolution is just a “theory.” On Joe Rogan’s podcast, he said, “Darwin’s theory is completely unproven, which is why, almost 200 years later, it’s still a theory.”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the scientific sense. In the minds of those who make this mistake, theories are untested ideas that need to be proven through the accumulation of facts and evidence. But that’s wrong. A theory is an explanatory framework that tells us what the facts mean. In other words, facts do not prove or disprove a theory. A theory is an explanation of facts and allows us to predict future facts and evidence that are expected to be observed in the light of the theory. To say that evolution remains a theory after 200 years is to say that it remains a successful framework in its explanatory and predictive power regarding the facts and evidence discovered over the past 200 years. This is not the devastating criticism Carlson thinks it is. The germ theory of disease Even though it was proposed in the 1500s, it is still a “theory” and therefore an unproven idea.
Just as biological facts require theory to be understood, economic facts require theory. As with evolution, commentators often downplay the importance of economic theory. theory On the other hand, they are engaged in the supposedly more sophisticated practice of simply dealing with facts. paul krugman You provided a great explanation of when this might go wrong Discuss William Greider’s books One World, Ready or Not: The Crazy Logic of Global Capitalism:
I think I know what Glader will answer. What I’m talking about is just theory, but his argument is based on evidence. But in reality, the U.S. economy has added 45 million jobs over the past 25 years, with far more jobs created in the service sector than lost in manufacturing. As I understand it, Greider’s view is that this is just a grace period and that in the near future the entire economy will start to look like the steel industry. But this is a purely theoretical prediction. And Greider’s theorizing is even more speculative and simplistic because he is an accidental theorist, a theorist contrary to himself. Because he and his unwary readers assume that his conclusions arise simply from the facts, not realizing that they are guided by implicit assumptions that cannot survive the light of day. Body.
Needless to say, I have little expectation that the general public, or even most intellectuals, will realize how ridiculous Greider’s book is.
Some of the statements we make are factually wrong, and some are theoretically wrong. While the former may sound like a bigger mistake, it is the latter that really confuses our understanding. Because again, we need a theory that tells us what the facts mean. A large number of true facts interpreted with false theories will leave one deeply confused about how the world works.
For example, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once commented on the low unemployment rate:
I think the numbers you just talked about are part of the problem. We look at these numbers and say, “Oh, unemployment is low, everything is fine.” The unemployment rate is low because everyone has two jobs.
In response, many people pointed out that her claim that “everyone has two jobs” is simply factually incorrect. At the time she made this comment, the proportion of workers holding multiple jobs was at an all-time low. She claimed that the number of unemployed people is decreasing because the number of people working multiple jobs is increasing, but that is not the case, and even if the unemployment rate decreases, the number of people working multiple jobs is decreasing. Because the number of is not increasing.
However, rather than her statement being factually wrong, it is In theory It was right. of Unemployment rate People holding multiple jobs will not reduce the unemployment rate. In fact, people who hold multiple jobs have the effect of keeping the unemployment rate high rather than lowering it. To understand why, consider this very simplified example.
Imagine a town with a workforce of 10 people. Being in the workforce means either having a job or not having a job but actively looking for work. Suppose 8 out of 10 people are employed and 2 are unemployed and looking for work. In this case, the unemployment rate is 20%. Now, suppose a new job is created, a night watchman in a factory, and 2 people apply for the job. One of the applicants is unemployed and the other is employed but looking to find a new job. If the unemployed applicant gets a job, the unemployment rate will drop from 20% to 10%. However, if the already employed applicant is hired and starts another job, the unemployment rate will not drop but will remain at 20%. (Also, note that I choose my words carefully; having multiple jobs is not strictly true) salary increase Unemployment rate – The unemployment rate here remains at 20%. It is believed that holding multiple jobs makes the unemployment rate “higher than it would otherwise be,” but it never pushes up the unemployment rate. under.
The big problem with her argument is not that she got the facts wrong. The big problem is that even if she was Even if you were right about the facts, you wouldn’t have understood what those facts actually meant regarding the unemployment rate. That’s why it’s so important to have a good understanding of economic theory. This is because replacing false facts with true facts is of no use unless we have an appropriate theoretical framework to understand those facts.
For example, if you were asked to explain why you think the economy is sluggish despite low unemployment, a correct answer, at least in theory, would be:
It is true that the unemployment rate is low. But that’s only because many people have given up hope of finding work. As legislators continue to pass regulations that make it more and more expensive to hire workers, the lowest-skilled and most vulnerable workers are increasingly squeezed out of the labor market. Eventually, they give up on finding work, and even if they do find work, they are no longer in the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed. Therefore, even if the unemployment rate is low, it is not at first glance a good sign.
This explanation may be factually incorrect. To solve that, we need to look at labor force participation data to see if people are actually dropping out of the labor force. However, this explanation is at least theoretically correct, and if the factual claim turns out to be incorrect, it may lead to a better understanding of the situation.
