–>Are you lusting after a few (or even more) Ugg boots and if so, you're in good company, as girls and women of all ages, especially with the simple, slipper-like design of these sheepskin ugg boots sale , which are relatively easy and very comfortable to wear. And they appear to be affected. Some men are also jumping on the trend and luxury UGGs? Australia, the brand also offers a range of contemporary styles for them.

–>Could you mind giving everyone loves from ugg classic ? There are so many types of uggs, ugg bailey button,ugg classic tall, ugg classic short, ugg classic cardy. How to choose your favorite? Or do you really want to one uggs regardless its style? Despite their design is awkward and slipper-lile, Uggs is one of the few stations that are of general interest, have argued that cross generational lines.

–>Young people, students and young mothers and the Middle Ages, the original Black Ultra Tall UGG Boots, seem pulled the fleecy-lined boots that are manufactured in Australia, with the best materials. Are you sure that your feet warm in winter without socks, and cool in summer so that is more versatile too? If no, hurry up to take one ugg boots on uggs on sale ! That's why we see people wear them in schools, supermarkets, on the slopes and even in the most popular beaches in the United States and abroad. Many surfers also use uggs to keep their feet warm.

–>What do you really care about? Is its price or quality, or you just following the general trend? You know what are you thinking in your heart!

Your comment: 'Continuously readjusting non-explanatory models to fit new data isn't what a science does. ' is too optimistic.

I guess by 'causal mechanical' you mean dynamical models, and explicitly not regression or stochastic schemes? If so, fitted models like the ones I mentioned are still the best tools available in some noisy physical sciences, I'm thinking hydrology in particular, and older but still used atmospheric subgrid parameterisations.

Nevertheless, you're right to prefer a dynamical approach where available. I suspect though, as others in the thread have noted, that the system is simply unpredictable at some of the time scales we'd like it to be, and that it might turn out that simple models explain most of the predictable variance.

Actually, in Astronomy the invariance of the laws of nature is subject to verification. The most flashy example I'm aware of is that in supernovas, all of the elements in the periodic table, including the really short half-life elements, are produced. These elements decay according to their individual nature, and that decay can be observed through the fall-off in the brightness of their spectrum lines. Each of the elements always decays at exactly the rate it would on Earth, no matter where in the observable universe the supernova occurs.

Ok, now: I actually agree with you that Wilkinson goes astray when he attempts to prescribe a particular alternative approach that would be “better science.” But his *criticisms* are on-target. Your response is actually the one that proves too much, because it could be made just as strongly on behalf of Christian apologetics, astrology, Lysenkoism, Marxist dialectics, acupuncture, chiropractics, natural law, Freudian psychotherapy, … in short, any discursive practice that combines reasoned disagreement with a method of processing this disagreement into an acknowledged “canon.”

Now, Wilkinson wants to use the science/not-science distinction to separate astronomy from astrology; I actually think that particular dichotomy muddles things more than it helps. As I said in my reply to pushmedia1, we need an approach that blends pragmatism and social epistemology: what we want to know is *which* bodies of “expertise” warrant epistemic authority *and in which contexts*. So: look to the web of belief and action; how the knowledge-producing communities impinge upon the knowledge-using communities, the feedback mechanisms between theory and practice (what's taken as “disconfirming,” what isn't); that sort of thing.

When we do that, we see that physics and chemistry, through their interpenetration with engineering and problem-solving more prosaically, haven't just made predictions or offered plausible explanations; their claims have become so thoroughly integrated within everything we do that we confirm, if not their “truth,” then at least their reliability, every time we wake up and turn on a light-switch.

Macro-economics? Not so much. Sure, I'm sure you and pushmedia1 see DSGE models confirmed in what you read in the news and in history, but plenty of others just as smart as you think that *completely incompatible* approaches make sense of things, and that macro-astrology would be just as persuasive as macro-economics if it put as much brainpower and CPU cycles into refining the models to fit the data. Sure, it's crazy to think that the differential gravitational fields of heavenly bodies determines our fates in the way that such a macro-astrology would say … but then, it's just as crazy to think that our economy is populated by agents acting out their parts in the solution to an infinite-period stochastic game of utility-function maximization.

Leaving issues of semantics aside, is there something fundamentally wrong with this? The scientists above aren't claiming to do anything more than predict, and they predict successfully.

Now, I _don't_ think this is the position modern macro is in. As best as I can tell, macro has failed as a predictive science. I also don't think that explaining causal relationships is worthless – it tends to do a good job of predicting, in fact. It's just not strictly necessary for prediction, which seems to be a legitimate endeavor, whether or not you want to call it science.

The movements of heavenly bodies prompt *extremely* intuitive, yet false, astronomical theories; a heliocentric solar system is about as classic a case of a counterintuitive scientific finding as you can get, up there with inertia.

Whereas one of the constants throughout the emergence of modern markets is the outrage they provoke precisely because they seem *unnatural*.

As for why most of the natural sciences, collectively understood, have earned epistemic authority in a way that economics has not: they're part of a web of belief that impinges on empirical experience so thoroughly and pervasively that about the only alternative to physics & chemistry getting things more or less “right” (however you cash out “right”) is to presume that something like a Cartesian Demon is just messing with us, or we're in the Matrix, or something. (And those possibilities have no practical implications.)

What's more, this tight integration between basic science, engineering, and everyday problem-solving doesn't merely validate the corpus of knowledge at any given time; it also helps us when trying to evaluate the *institutional epistemic authority* of various methods for the producing and distributing knowledge.

When it comes to depressions, macro is more successful as a descriptive science than as a prescriptive one. Krugman's essay omitted a hugely likely possibility which is: nobody knows how to prevent depressions. Really big crashes come around so infrequently, have so many contributing factors and are so specific to their local circumstances that we just don't have a solid, well-tested theory about how to stop them. Which almost goes without saying. Sure, there are policies in place, but if they work at “preventing a depression” the depression doesn't happen so we have no way of knowing that they worked; we can't logically distinguish “it worked” from “we had a lucky run”. We only notice the failures.

From one point of view, 70 years without a depression is a pretty good run and indicates we're doing something right. It's only a problem if you think preventing all depressions is possible. Krugman apparently thinks it is, so he wants to make sure the next team has the right combination of strategies from Team A and Team B. But if he's mistaken, then this crash only tells us that economists are fallible with respect to giving advice that will entirely prevent depressions. Just as meteorologists are fallible with respect to hurricane-prevention advice. It doesn't necessarily mean the field is in crisis; it might just mean we should dial back our unreasonable expectations a bit.

I suspect the difference between astronomy and macroeconomics is we have very few intuitions about the former and lots about the latter. When an astronomer makes crazy assumptions to get her result, we shrug our shoulders because whatever she's making a assumptions about are so unfamiliar. Economists make assumptions about human psychology and other stuff that everyone thinks they know about. Our crazy simplifications are more obvious and more intimately unreasonable.