RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jevons paradox

Jevons paradox | Result: Noclipped out of reality and into the backrooms

Jevons paradox (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. There are many problems with this stub. First, it does not have sources at all. Second, most, if not all of the content I could find about this subject, contradicts the so-called "paradox". Apparently, people don't even know how to measure it.[1], it's based purely on theoretical arguments and they are themselves quite weak.[2] The best empirical test I could find also suggests that the evidence is pretty much weak[3].Third, the article extrapolates Jevons argument (which is about energy) to pretty much everything else, without, again, give any source to back such claims. It's clearly a fringe idea, and I don't think we need an article on it, Wikipedia already has one.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per GeeJayK above. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{My experiments} 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. This article is clearly shit, although I have given several examples that demonstrate its continued usage in the literature (which raises questions of how meaningfully we can demarcate what is "fringe" or not). As the article currently stands it's shit, so on a purely functional ground I'm voting for deletion. Carthage (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. If the evidence supports that this paradox isn't real, my suggestion would be rewriting it to make it clear that the subject is pseudoscientific, rather than deleting it outright. Refuting pseudoscience is a big part of RationalWiki's mission, after all. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. It's not 'pseudoscientific' - it's simply a variation of supply/demand curves. That if a resource becomes 'cheaper' [by mile of locomotion, to cite the classic example] the total consumption of that resource may end up higher than before because that resource becomes much more attractive to use [for example, people changing from other methods of travel]. The debate in economics is not whether it exists or not, but how strong the effect can be and how often is it observed.

Yet there is the little point that the stub isn't that good; like many Econ pages on RW, it needs someone who has some knowledge/interest in this subject to re-do it. I've taken a look at the WP version on this and it's kinda too dense for a layperson to get. Therefore, I argue firmly that this page should not be deleted but left for the day someone comes along, thinks 'I can do better' and does so. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to know how exactly it's "fringe" given that fact that it clearly has been used in the literature (with evidently measurable results, I already linked a few). And remember, "fringe" does not impart any data about the truth value of a statement. If it's "fringe" for economics, is it fringe for sociohydrology? Carthage (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If I had the time and mental bandwidth, I would merge Jevons into a wider 'supply and demand' article, which would also cover stuff like 'Veblen goods' and 'Giffen good'. All three are examples where the 'conventional wisdom' are incorrect. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat

Wikipedia highlights several cases where the Jevons paradox has been used in academia, including in sociohydrology with what's called the "reservoir effect". To quote the abstract of the Nature Sustainability study:

The expansion of reservoirs to cope with droughts and water shortages is hotly debated in many places around the world. We argue that there are two counterintuitive dynamics that should be considered in this debate: supply–demand cycles and reservoir effects. Supply–demand cycles describe instances where increasing water supply enables higher water demand, which can quickly offset the initial benefits of reservoirs. Reservoir effects refer to cases where over-reliance on reservoirs increases vulnerability, and therefore increases the potential damage caused by droughts. Here we illustrate these counterintuitive dynamics with global and local examples, and discuss policy and research implications.

- [4]

Now I'm inclined to delete the article as it currently stands for the reasons GJK describes, but it clearly has at least some descriptive value. Another study used Jevons' paradox in a similar fashion, although its wording is pretty cautious:

Improving the efficiency of water use is usually presented as an opportunity for large water savings, particularly in the agricultural sector. Warnings that this may not translate into reduced consumption is sometimes associated with the rebound effect or Jevons paradox, an appealing concept that can be used to analyse and prevent unde ired consequences in the rush for efficiency gains. This article, based on the energy sector, shows that the concept helps to identify possible unintended consequences of increasing efficiency and shows how efficiency gains are shared in society. However, it might be conceptually misleading when applied to water since it reinforces a myth on the consideration of water savings and efficiency, and may be also too restrictive. The recent modernisation of irrigation practices in Spain highlights that the rebound effect is only one of many possible consequences of efficiency improvements.

- [5]

So I'm not sure if this can be called pseudoscientific. Carthage (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's pseudoscientific either, just that it's a very theoretical argument that is very hard to measure, so has very little place here. I don't think we should have articles that are so speculative. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you were talking about Luigi, I guess. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly. When most people read "fringe" they're gonna think "pseudoscience." Also, given the fact that it's been used as a tool in the literature recently (in sociology and water management, although Wikipedia also gives other use examples) I'm not sure how "fringe" it really is. Either way the article as it currently stands is shit.

Also, this wiki allows for original research. (Then again if it's present in the literature it's not really "original" as Wikipedia defines it.) Are you advocating for a policy shift?

Homo economicus by your standard presented here is "mostly theoretical," and also incredibly questionable as a philosophical standard and methodological underpinning. Now I know that mainstream economics as a whole has moved on from a strict emphasis on Homo economicus, but it is still arguably relevant as an ideological underpinning for a whole bunch of shit ideologies (and the continued emphasis on "rationality" has also met sustained criticism from a number of fronts). Is your argument better framed as one of "relevance" then? Jevons' paradox is clearly being employed as an analytical tool in recent literature. Carthage (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)