Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	Post Comments Below © 2007 Daniel J. McLaughlin Science Of Decision Making Baseball fans are showing early symptoms of baseball fever. Even as the season is just beginning, the stars are in the news. Sammy Sosa is hitting homers and making headlines. When he takes the plate, he can make something big happen. Sammy Sosa isn’t a mechanical engineer. He knows enough about the laws of nature, however, to find the ball. He instantly processes all of the information necessary to connect with it and make it fly into the stands. The laws of physics can describe what happens in detail, but that knowledge doesn’t make it happen. Only his experience and decisions make it happen. In the same way, the laws of economics describe what happens in daily life, but when you go to the market, you don’t need to be an economist to successfully provide for your family. Like Mr. Sosa, you instantly process all of the personal preference and market information needed to make decisions. Mechanical engineers use their knowledge of cause and effect to understand a certain result, the trajectory of a baseball, for instance. If the same conditions, inputs and processes are used, the result will be consistent and predictable. A baseball bat and ball have strictly identifiable characteristics. They will always react the same way to applied conditions. Social engineers, on the other hand, try to use the laws of economics to bring about what they think is good. To a certain extent, that is possible, because we can anticipate the general reaction of the markets to external forces. There are multiple problems with this engineering approach, however. Real people have their own goals, ambitions and preferences. They don’t always do what is expected. There will be unanticipated disasters, hurricanes, droughts, business failures and government interventions that can dramatically change people’s perceptions, expectations and needs. Physical scientists work with known quantities and constants. They can control the inputs and precisely describe the reaction of materials. In the social sciences, however, there are far too many variables and unknowns to arrive at any precise cause-effect relationships. Scientists can’t possibly know and measure all of the far reaching effects of actions on each member of society. Even if they were able to perfectly direct the society to bring about the desired good results, who’s conception of good should be used? With 300 million people in this country, there is a wide divergence of opinion of what is good and appropriate. The more effective the social engineers are at imposing their own view of what is good, the more offensive and abusive they are to those that oppose them. People have a right to act in their own interest as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. While the primary effects of market manipulation are somewhat predictable, secondary effects are usually hidden, but often just as significant as the primary. In the social realm, conditions and preferences can vary minute by minute. Humans are acting beings. They are not controllable and react in different ways at different times. In any event, the process is necessarily political, and expediency is the rule, rather than what is good. The changes are guided by the selfish interests of politically powerful groups, and not by the general good, even if that was known, or even knowable. They will emphasize the here and now benefits to themselves or their group and ignore the negative consequences to other groups, or longer term effects. The use of political force to bring about good also assumes selfless leaders that act only in the public interest, an obviously unrealistic expectation to even passive observers of reality. Many people claim to know what is good for the population, the citizens, the people, but the welfare of a population is maximized only when free people make free decisions without coercion from anyone. Economic freedom correlates with improvement in all measures of well-being. It is a rational consequence of the most fundamental elements of human action. Scientists are trained to understand cause and effect, to explain what is. They can help individual baseball players or market participants achieve their goals, and players should use whatever knowledge will help them. Scientists are, however, no more qualified than any other person to dictate what those goals should be. Decisions and opinions are not the realm of science but, rather, the realm of human choice. Humanity is better off when baseball decisions are left to baseball players and market decisions to the market players, that is, you and me.
Contact us Privacy Policy Comments
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 01/06/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Post Comments Below

Science Of Decision Making

Baseball fans are showing early symptoms of baseball fever. Even as the season is just beginning, the stars are in the news. Sammy Sosa is hitting homers and making headlines. When he takes the plate, he can make something big happen.

Sammy Sosa isn’t a mechanical engineer. He knows enough about the laws of nature, however, to find the ball. He instantly processes all of the information necessary to connect with it and make it fly into the stands. The laws of physics can describe what happens in detail, but that knowledge doesn’t make it happen. Only his experience and decisions make it happen.

In the same way, the laws of economics describe what happens in daily life, but when you go to the market, you don’t need to be an economist to successfully provide for your family. Like Mr. Sosa, you instantly process all of the personal preference and market information needed to make decisions.

Mechanical engineers use their knowledge of cause and effect to understand a certain result, the trajectory of a baseball, for instance. If the same conditions, inputs and processes are used, the result will be consistent and predictable. A baseball bat and ball have strictly identifiable characteristics. They will always react the same way to applied conditions.

Social engineers, on the other hand, try to use the laws of economics to bring about what they think is good. To a certain extent, that is possible, because we can anticipate the general reaction of the markets to external forces. There are multiple problems with this engineering approach, however. Real people have their own goals, ambitions and preferences. They don’t always do what is expected. There will be unanticipated disasters, hurricanes, droughts, business failures and government interventions that can dramatically change people’s perceptions, expectations and needs.

Physical scientists work with known quantities and constants. They can control the inputs and precisely describe the reaction of materials. In the social sciences, however, there are far too many variables and unknowns to arrive at any precise cause-effect relationships. Scientists can’t possibly know and measure all of the far reaching effects of actions on each member of society.

Even if they were able to perfectly direct the society to bring about the desired good results, who’s conception of good should be used? With 300 million people in this country, there is a wide divergence of opinion of what is good and appropriate. The more effective the social engineers are at imposing their own view of what is good, the more offensive and abusive they are to those that oppose them. People have a right to act in their own interest as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.

While the primary effects of market manipulation are somewhat predictable, secondary effects are usually hidden, but often just as significant as the primary. In the social realm, conditions and preferences can vary minute by minute. Humans are acting beings. They are not controllable and react in different ways at different times.

In any event, the process is necessarily political, and expediency is the rule, rather than what is good. The changes are guided by the selfish interests of politically powerful groups, and not by the general good, even if that was known, or even knowable. They will emphasize the here and now benefits to themselves or their group and ignore the negative consequences to other groups, or longer term effects. The use of political force to bring about good also assumes selfless leaders that act only in the public interest, an obviously unrealistic expectation to even passive observers of reality.

Many people claim to know what is good for the population, the citizens, the people, but the welfare of a population is maximized only when free people make free decisions without coercion from anyone. Economic freedom correlates with improvement in all measures of well-being. It is a rational consequence of the most fundamental elements of human action.

Scientists are trained to understand cause and effect, to explain what is. They can help individual baseball players or market participants achieve their goals, and players should use whatever knowledge will help them. Scientists are, however, no more qualified than any other person to dictate what those goals should be. Decisions and opinions are not the realm of science but, rather, the realm of human choice. Humanity is better off when baseball decisions are left to baseball players and market decisions to the market players, that is, you and me.

Hit Counter