Entry 2200, on 2022-01-27 at 21:44:57 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
One of my favourite aphorisms is this: "in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't." This has been attributed to Yogi Berra (I didn't make this up, he was a baseball player, apparently), Einstein, and Feynman, but pre-dates them all, and is credited to Benjamin Brewster by Quote Investigator. It can be applied to many different situations, especially where a person or group is suggesting a particular action based on what is best in theory, but where there is suspicion that the outcome from actual practice will be not quite so positive.
Of course, theory works extremely well in many situations and gives the correct results in practice, but these tend to be simpler examples where there is no influence from chaotic events. For example, theory can allow us to plot a course for a spacecraft to get to the Moon, but it doesn't allow us to predict with certainty the weather next week.
And in the social sciences (which are debatably not sciences at all) and the arts, things become even more uncertain. The outcomes of elections, the effects of different economic and political policies, and future societal trends are all impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy.
So we should be very careful about applying ideas which seem great in theory, but have either not been tested or are found to be lacking in practice. The claim that something works well in theory should not be taken too seriously until some proper empirical testing can be done to see if the practice matches the theory.
OK, I think I have established the underlying idea of this post; it is now time to give the example of this effect I want to concentrate on in this post: socialism.
This political ideology has gained quite a lot of support recently, even in countries which traditionally rejected it, like the US. And why shouldn't we support it, because superficially at least, it seems to alleviate the negative aspects of capitalism.
We find that the rich are getting richer in relation to the poor in all capitalist contries and that is quite rightly seen as a problem. In theory socialism should fix this, because it takes control from the elite and hands it to the community as a whole.
We also find that environmental issues often arise from corporations following the need for more profit while ignoring the effects of their activities on the environment. After all, in pure capitalism, if there is no profit in keeping the environment in good condition why would they want to do anything about that?
There is merit in these criticisms of capitalism, and socialism appears to be an answer, but in practice if we look at countries which have attempted to implement socialism we see the exact opposite of what theory tells us. In the USSR, for example, the poor were much worse off than the majority of similar people in capitalist countries, and the environment was often sacrificed in an attempt to improve efficiency.
It seems that this is a classic case of practice not matching theory. Note that people who claim that all the failures of socialism were because it wasn't implemented correctly in that case are just proving my point, because the practice, in every case I know, never delivers what the theory promises.
More specifically, look at East and West Germany before the failure of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Was the Wall there to stop West Germans escaping to the East? I don't think so. It was people in the socialist East who wanted out. No matter what the negative aspects of the West's political and economic system were, it still looked a lot better than the East!
And since the reunification of Germany, have the principles in effect in the East been applied to the new structure, or has it more or less became just like the West was? Again, what actually happened in practice seems to indicate socialism wasn't a particularly attractive option.
Many esteemed groups are saying we should limit growth in an attempt to reduce climate change and other environmental problems, and again, this looks reasonable in theory. After all, if we limit growth we need less resources and put less stress on the environment, right? Well, no. That's right in theory, but highly doubtful in practice.
Environmentalism was invented in the Western world, and it only becomes practical when people already have a high standard of living. It may seem that burning fossil fuels is a bad idea, but compared with clearing forest for fuel, or burning far dirtier fuels, it isn't so bad. We can only fix the environment when people have a reasonable standard of living, and a good standard of living does seem associated with free-market, capitalist economies. So a case could be made to say that growth is necessary to improve the environment.
If we really want to make the world a better place we should ensure that everyone has access to a fair standard of living. To do that we need reliable energy sources, because that is where an efficient economy starts.
And the best source for energy at this stage of history is nuclear power. Again, nuclear power is being rejected because of ill-defined theoretical ideas. It is claimed to be dangerous, expensive, and not environmentally viable.
But the opposite is closer to the truth, because in practice we find nuclear is a very safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly technology. I have already covered the stats on this in a post titled "Give Nuclear Respect" from 2019-07-02, so I won't repeat them here, but basically the clearly established deaths from nuclear are far below any other form of energy production, even solar.
Of course, when nuclear goes wrong it can go wrong very spectacularly, but that very rarely happens, and when it has happened in the past it has been in older style facilities (Fukushima was designed in the 1960s) which were run incompetently (the Chernobyl disaster was caused by some fairly gross incompetence by the operators). And even when acknowledging the deaths from those accidents, nuclear is still far safer than anything else, especially coal power.
So in theory nuclear is bad, and that theory has been used in some countries (such as Germany) to reduce the number of nuclear plants, but the reality is far different.
Notice also, that theories, as well as being just theories, are also often warped by ideology. The ideas supporting the benefits of socialism are based on Marxist theory which is very much open to criticism. The same applies to the environmental impacts of capitalist growth and the dangers of nuclear power. They are all based on theories irredeemably warped by political ideologies, especially Marxism.
So, in summary, I say be cautious of theories in the area of politics, economics, and other non-physical sciences. All good science emphasises how theories should be tested empirically against reality. Some seem to have forgotten that step, and just stuck with the theory. Always be skeptical of theory without practice.
Totally agree, the theory of "Trickle down" / "Rising tide lifts all the boats" should be treated with utter skepticism. Any theory can (and should) be open to criticism.
Nuclear may, on average, be safer. I guess the consequences of failure with nuclear are much higher. Sure, human nature played a big part in Chernobyl where continental Europe narrowly escaped disaster - but how many power stations do you know of that aren't run by people?
FYI, take a look at https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/300504573/hot-stuff-lab-hits-milestone-on-long-road-to-fusion-power.
If you don't mind reading the "MSM" that is...
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 21:50:37:
Yes, all theories should be treated skeptically, but those in the areas of sociology, politics, economics even more so.
Modern nuclear power stations are far less likely to have major failures because of their design. For example, they naturally shut down instead of going critical in the case of a major failure. Also note that despite incompetence and bad luck there has never been a *really* bad nuclear disaster so far, even with the old designs which have had incidents.
Yes, I am aware of recent progress with fusion. Ultimately that will be the answer, but I refuse to offer fusion as an option at this point. The big joke is that fusion has been "5 years in the furture" for the last 50 years!
Comment 3 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 21:51:12:
Also note that I do use the MSM. I am just very suspicious of its accuracy and impartiality. My point above is that alternative sources should be used as well, for balance.
Comment 4 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 21:51:40:
Maybe you should amend your comment to read "CREDIBLE alternative sources should be used as well, for balance".
Comment 5 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 21:52:08:
I'm fairly sure no one would use a source they thought wasn't credible. The problem is how to evaluate credibility. For example, many people just outright reject anything from podcasts, especially controversial ones like Joe Rogan's. But if they listened to a fair selection of them they would find that there is a lot of very credible information in them, as well as some outright BS. But I would say the fact to noise ratio isn't significantly different from the MSM. So which is credible?
Comment 6 by Anonymous on 2022-01-29 at 00:16:05:
"But I would say the fact to noise ratio isn't significantly different from the MSM". Of course you would say that, that's your bias. Where is your proof, or don't you deal in facts in the non-MSM world?
Comment 7 by OJB on 2022-01-29 at 10:14:13:
That is a fair point to call me out on. I have never seen any unbiased formal analysis of this, so I am just basing that statement on my own appraisal, which is biased as you say. In my defence, I did use the phrase " I would say..." so I admitted it was just an opinion.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE