5 ms·

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 m

by 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
    - berntb 10y ago
      Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper". Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others? (I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.) Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
      - beefield 10y ago
        To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_. You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists. My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable? (Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
        berntb 10y ago
        It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper. (Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.) Enough for me, bye. Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
  - pandaman 10y ago
    "Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability). Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
    - berntb 10y ago
      Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end: Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. ... Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
      - pandaman 10y ago
        Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
        berntb 10y ago
        So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc? The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this? This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about: "Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..." Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method... I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here. Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
coldtea 10y ago
>So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after? That's the best you could deduce from my comment? For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations. For who would make those? Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job. If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best. Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations? Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis). Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point. That said, here are some sources: https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-Community/dp/0674047222 https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science/dp/0393246418 https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideology/dp/0521532612 https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Diminishing-Conceptual-Foundations/dp/0226727246 https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...
- berntb 10y ago
  >> If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best. You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-( The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career. If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later. You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support. >> should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations? Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic... About your references: * Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.) * "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview: "Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above" Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-) * Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.

by berntb 10y ago

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
  - berntb 10y ago
    Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper". Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others? (I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.) Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
    - beefield 10y ago
      To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_. You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists. My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable? (Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
      - berntb 10y ago
        It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper. (Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.) Enough for me, bye. Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
- pandaman 10y ago
  "Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability). Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
  - berntb 10y ago
    Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point. (The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.) "Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end: Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. ... Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
    - pandaman 10y ago
      Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
      - berntb 10y ago
        So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc? The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this? This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about: "Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..." Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method... I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here. Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno

coldtea 10y ago

>So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after? That's the best you could deduce from my comment? For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations. For who would make those? Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job. If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best. Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations? Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis). Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point. That said, here are some sources: https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-Community/dp/0674047222 https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science/dp/0393246418 https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideology/dp/0521532612 https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Diminishing-Conceptual-Foundations/dp/0226727246 https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...

berntb 10y ago
>> If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best. You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-( The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career. If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later. You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support. >> should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations? Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic... About your references: * Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.) * "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview: "Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above" Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-) * Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.