Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 635
I said nothing about the level of my own expertise in statistics. I do know a thing or two about it, about the hard physical sciences, math and also about Economics.
Economics is about the study of certain aspects and tendencies of individual human, group, institutional, government and world behavior involving the actions of individual people on up through the complexities of many simultaneous, interacting human economic "actors". Like all science, it is imperfect and incomplete in its understanding of the complex behavioral phenomena it seeks to address. Therefore its predictive models are only as good as the body of understanding currently available within the discipline.
That body of understanding, like all science, is ever expanding, but never does it encompass everything there is to know on the subject. And, especially dealing with humans and their groups, institutions, governments, etc., who do not always act prudently or rationally, specific cause/effect results or future outcomes may lack accurate economic predictability.
There are also unpredictable "externalities". A forecast of GDP, for example, may be far off due to unanticipated hot wars, trade wars, hurricanes, volcanoes, droughts, sun spots, strikes, etc. affecting economic activity such as farming and other commercial activity.
There are parallels to every other science in these regards, including audio science. Therefore, starting from known science with a top down model specified and derived even thoroughly and completely from that body of science can only be as comprehensive as the limits of current knowledge will allow, at best, even assuming perfect implementation of the model.
As Reagan said, "trust but verify". In audio, are instrument measurements derived from the same limited body of current scientific knowledge sufficient? Or, do we need to go further with controlled listening tests on samples of human subjects, messy as that is, in case we have missed something or introduced an inadvertent side effect?
Economics is about the study of certain aspects and tendencies of individual human, group, institutional, government and world behavior involving the actions of individual people on up through the complexities of many simultaneous, interacting human economic "actors". Like all science, it is imperfect and incomplete in its understanding of the complex behavioral phenomena it seeks to address. Therefore its predictive models are only as good as the body of understanding currently available within the discipline.
That body of understanding, like all science, is ever expanding, but never does it encompass everything there is to know on the subject. And, especially dealing with humans and their groups, institutions, governments, etc., who do not always act prudently or rationally, specific cause/effect results or future outcomes may lack accurate economic predictability.
There are also unpredictable "externalities". A forecast of GDP, for example, may be far off due to unanticipated hot wars, trade wars, hurricanes, volcanoes, droughts, sun spots, strikes, etc. affecting economic activity such as farming and other commercial activity.
There are parallels to every other science in these regards, including audio science. Therefore, starting from known science with a top down model specified and derived even thoroughly and completely from that body of science can only be as comprehensive as the limits of current knowledge will allow, at best, even assuming perfect implementation of the model.
As Reagan said, "trust but verify". In audio, are instrument measurements derived from the same limited body of current scientific knowledge sufficient? Or, do we need to go further with controlled listening tests on samples of human subjects, messy as that is, in case we have missed something or introduced an inadvertent side effect?