5 ms·

It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology. (That is, your statement presupposes most people

by berntb 10y ago

It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology. (That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.) I'd be interested if you can back that up? (With non ideological sources, of course.) Edit: Considering the numbers, there are going to be some true conspiracy theories... and mass hypnosis from unverifiable things like psychology (Freud, Jung, etc). The burden of proof is still on the one presenting the conspiracy theories. Edit 2: And of course, some sciences are experimental and use the scientific method. Some are largely historical (palaeontology, economics, etc). That doesn't counter my point either.

coldtea 10y ago
>That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks. Kind of like there have been hundreds of thousands of Freudian psychoanalysts (considered scientists) in the 20th century until now? Or how people consider (and increasingly clinics embrace) homeopathists as doctors and scientists? With their own educational programs, journals and everything too. In any case there's nothing special about many people working in a field that makes them automatically proper scientists. To begin with, the term "science" is ambiguous. It can refer to empirically or axiomatically verifiable, experimental, scientific-method following fields, which is what is actually "science" (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and whatever ad-hoc field of study one can come up with. The first is sometimes called "hard sciences" to differentiate them from the more "lax" and "anything goes" ones. Now, the second type could still be a productive (if informal) field of inquiry and argumentation and insight. I'm all for continental philosophy for example. But it's not scientific in the way engineering or physics is. Not even close. The "Academy of Science" in most countries includes philosophers for example. And they do get Ph.D degrees and everything. They never verify anything, and they can hold totally conflicting views and still be "valid" and well established. Would you consider them "scientists"? If not, are you a conspiracy theorist? It's naive to believe that the way a society names some practices is also revealing about the essence of those practices.
- berntb 10y ago
  So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after? That some sciences can't use the scientific method (do experiments etc) like some parts of geology, don't counter my point. [Edit: Unless your point really is that you dismiss palaeontology et al in an equal way, too?] (Or are you arguing that 80% of most everything which aren't based on mathematical proofs are bad?) Edit: This is an innocent question about getting references to strong claims that a science has 0 "scientific content". I know some people whose integrity and intelligence I trust, which later went the academic track in economics. That gave in total 4 down votes -- but still without a reference?
  - beefield 10y ago
    I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory. Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility? This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
    - berntb 10y ago
      Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either? This is an honest question. (And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
      - beefield 10y ago
        I know nothing about palaeontology. Can you give an example of unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology? Yes, classical physics is a simplification, but it is a _falsifiable_ simplification, unlike the utility maximizer. Note that falsifiability has nothing to do with making experiments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
nhaehnle 10y ago
I don't think conspiracy theory is the right word for it. The world isn't ever that neat :) His statement, when you refine it appropriately (which is not always done in an online forum), only presupposes that most people of the field who are visible to the public are "either idiots, fanatics or crooks". I wouldn't phrase it quite so strongly (and for what it's worth, the grandparent didn't either), but it's easy to see why that would happen. Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. So a lot of money is spent on trying to do so (virtually all of the so-called "think tanks"), much more and on a much more consistent basis than in any other science. So even from first principles, without any evidence, you have to logically expect economics to be worse than other sciences at delivering a rational truth. As for evidence, I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"? All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"? Since no references, which I asked for, have been presented at all, that is not an interesting problem... >> the grandparent didn't [phrase it strongly] either Uh, "scientific content in most economists is zero." is not strong? >> All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public. Why do you assume that "alternative voices" are better than the research consensus of a field? (Yes, I make myself intentionally stupid here. I realize the answer probably is because you like the alternative voices better...? :-) ) >> Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. Certainly you'll find paid research in any field with policy influences. Smoking comes to mind. Please make it likely that most of the [economy] field is corrupt, as the GP argued?
  - nhaehnle 10y ago

by berntb 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks. Kind of like there have been hundreds of thousands of Freudian psychoanalysts (considered scientists) in the 20th century until now? Or how people consider (and increasingly clinics embrace) homeopathists as doctors and scientists? With their own educational programs, journals and everything too. In any case there's nothing special about many people working in a field that makes them automatically proper scientists. To begin with, the term "science" is ambiguous. It can refer to empirically or axiomatically verifiable, experimental, scientific-method following fields, which is what is actually "science" (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and whatever ad-hoc field of study one can come up with. The first is sometimes called "hard sciences" to differentiate them from the more "lax" and "anything goes" ones. Now, the second type could still be a productive (if informal) field of inquiry and argumentation and insight. I'm all for continental philosophy for example. But it's not scientific in the way engineering or physics is. Not even close. The "Academy of Science" in most countries includes philosophers for example. And they do get Ph.D degrees and everything. They never verify anything, and they can hold totally conflicting views and still be "valid" and well established. Would you consider them "scientists"? If not, are you a conspiracy theorist? It's naive to believe that the way a society names some practices is also revealing about the essence of those practices.

berntb 10y ago
So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after? That some sciences can't use the scientific method (do experiments etc) like some parts of geology, don't counter my point. [Edit: Unless your point really is that you dismiss palaeontology et al in an equal way, too?] (Or are you arguing that 80% of most everything which aren't based on mathematical proofs are bad?) Edit: This is an innocent question about getting references to strong claims that a science has 0 "scientific content". I know some people whose integrity and intelligence I trust, which later went the academic track in economics. That gave in total 4 down votes -- but still without a reference?
- beefield 10y ago
  I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory. Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility? This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
  - berntb 10y ago
    Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either? This is an honest question. (And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
    - beefield 10y ago
      I know nothing about palaeontology. Can you give an example of unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology? Yes, classical physics is a simplification, but it is a _falsifiable_ simplification, unlike the utility maximizer. Note that falsifiability has nothing to do with making experiments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

nhaehnle 10y ago

I don't think conspiracy theory is the right word for it. The world isn't ever that neat :) His statement, when you refine it appropriately (which is not always done in an online forum), only presupposes that most people of the field who are visible to the public are "either idiots, fanatics or crooks". I wouldn't phrase it quite so strongly (and for what it's worth, the grandparent didn't either), but it's easy to see why that would happen. Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. So a lot of money is spent on trying to do so (virtually all of the so-called "think tanks"), much more and on a much more consistent basis than in any other science. So even from first principles, without any evidence, you have to logically expect economics to be worse than other sciences at delivering a rational truth. As for evidence, I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"? All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public.

berntb 10y ago
>> I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"? Since no references, which I asked for, have been presented at all, that is not an interesting problem... >> the grandparent didn't [phrase it strongly] either Uh, "scientific content in most economists is zero." is not strong? >> All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public. Why do you assume that "alternative voices" are better than the research consensus of a field? (Yes, I make myself intentionally stupid here. I realize the answer probably is because you like the alternative voices better...? :-) ) >> Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. Certainly you'll find paid research in any field with policy influences. Smoking comes to mind. Please make it likely that most of the [economy] field is corrupt, as the GP argued?
- nhaehnle 10y ago