Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Scientific integrity is undermined when standards are lowered to project certainty, producing misinformation and public distrust, as when politicized fields let cultural imperatives override empirical evidence. Examples include psychiatric diagnostic changes that reflect societal shifts rather than scientific advances, and claims that smoking burdens public finances despite smokers incurring lower long-term healthcare costs.

J. Peder Zane Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Science is the search for truth, which is often elusive. When we lower our standards to pretend we know what we don’t know, we diminish the work and misinform society.

Does lowering scientific standards to project certainty erode public trust?

Core argument: Lowering scientific standards to feign certainty produces misinformation and erodes public trust in science, an argument that science needs criticism rather than cheerleading.

The integrity of science is compromised when standards are lowered to feign certainty, leading to misinformation and public distrust. This is evident in the politicization of scientific fields, where cultural imperatives often overshadow empirical evidence. For instance, changes in psychiatric diagnoses reflect societal shifts rather than scientific breakthroughs. Similarly, the economic implications of smoking have been misrepresented; despite claims, smoking does not burden public finances as smokers incur fewer long-term healthcare costs. Such misrepresentations highlight the need for rigorous scientific inquiry to ensure that policy decisions are data-driven and not swayed by prevailing cultural narratives.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Lowering scientific standards to feign certainty produces misinformation and erodes public trust in science, an argument that science needs criticism rather than cheerleading.
  2. Changes in psychiatric diagnoses reflect societal shifts rather than scientific breakthroughs, an example of cultural imperatives overshadowing empirical evidence in politicized fields.
  3. Claims that smoking burdens public finances are misrepresented, as smokers incur fewer long-term healthcare costs, supporting the case for data-driven policy over prevailing cultural narratives.

The case for science, "...When Prof. John Staddon read the “Statement to the Community Regarding Anti-Racism” sent out by Duke University’s president this summer, he was alarmed. The president, Vincent Price, promised to require “anti-racism and anti-bias training for every member of our faculty, student body, and staff.” To Mr. Staddon, that sounded more like indoctrination than academic inquiry. He responded in an open letter.....Mr. Staddon is especially troubled by the concept of “implicit bias,” which holds that unconsciously held beliefs about social groups perpetuate racism, so that “basically, we are racist no matter what we do or even think.”......In a forthcoming book, “Fact vs. Passion: Science in the Age of Unreason,” he writes that “many social scientists have difficulty separating facts from faith, reality from the way they would like things to be.....The politicization of science, he says, isn’t limited to race. Not long ago, Mr. Staddon notes, “homosexuality and gender dysphoria were regarded as symptoms of mental illness. Not that I disapprove, the change just shows how supposedly scientific psychiatric diagnoses are often subordinate to cultural imperatives.”.....My personal tipping point” regarding the uses and misuse of science occurred some two decades later, “when I found out that despite massive publicity to the contrary, smoking has no public cost.” His 2014 book, “Unlucky Strike: Private Health and the Science, Law and Politics of Smoking,” argued that smoking saves society money on balance because the old need more resources than the young and smokers die more quickly and cheaply than nonsmokers. Smoking “puts individual smokers at risk. It does not put the public purse at risk......the corruption of science comes with its own costs: “Many people know these things. Those who don’t are made unnecessarily fearful, and those who do come to distrust medical science. Until we can identify the exact physiological and biochemical causes of these afflictions, until we know who is at risk and who is not, the medico-political establishment should stay quiet, or at least rein in its nanny instincts.” Mr. Staddon says they are, in the best sense of the word: “Science is the search for truth, which is often elusive. When we lower our standards to pretend we know what we don’t know, we diminish the work and misinform society.”..."

J. Peder Zane, "Science Needs Criticism, Not Cheerleading,"Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/science-needs-criticism-not-cheerleading-11613772365

Showing 187 database articles primarily about Politics