5 ms·

I think you're giving economics the benefit of the doubt while having a critical eye towards sociology when they're not much different in regards to objectivity

by jahaja 10y ago

I think you're giving economics the benefit of the doubt while having a critical eye towards sociology when they're not much different in regards to objectivity and being "soft" sciences. In fact I'm not sure sociology would still have its credibility intact if it were to have as many failures as economics have had just the latest 20 years or so. Somehow economics manages this, which leads me to the next point. I'm surprised that you're speaking with such certainty without mentioning the rather powerful relationship between economics and finance in a classical "follow the money" trail of thought.

trendia 10y ago
> relationship between economics and finance in a classical "follow the money" trail of thought. What specifically are you claiming?
- jahaja 10y ago
  That the study of economics has a strong connection to both capital and power while sociology is more academic/institutional and thus less influential.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    This. In spades. J.K. Galbraith (an economist himself) has claimed largely the same himself, and he's hardly the only one (within the field). (Update) Some examples: https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/tag/economists/ https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/tag/economists/
  - trendia 10y ago
    Except for Stiglitz, Borjas, Piketty, etc.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    True dat. Economics has a number of reformers, in endless battle with an elite who make their names and fortunes by telling power what it wants to hear (and dressing it up with shamanistic differential equations to give the appearance of credibility).
1337biz 10y ago
> In fact I'm not sure sociology would still have its credibility intact if it were to have as many failures as economics have had just the latest 20 years or so. We are here back at the fundamental mathification problem. Economists have understood that as long as their formulas look scientific enough, they can influence with their results policy makers et al.. Sociology rarely present their research in terms of the broad and universal truth as the economists do. So while Economists' results look rigorous on paper, reality still proves it often wrong.
- kome 10y ago
  That's so true. Economics copies hard science in its methods instead of its ends...
eanzenberg 10y ago
Please separate fundamental economic research with political economic decision-making. Good economic research improves tries to model real behavior. This doesn't stop politicians from cherry-picking research articles to verify their sometimes incorrect worldviews. This is analogous to complaining that climate researchers aren't rigorous because some subset of politicians claim it isn't manmade and point to some articles which support their claims.
- xg15 10y ago
  Then where were all the economists that raised alarm bells about the upcoming financial crisis but were silenced by ignorant politicians?
  - dgellow 10y ago
    You might be interested by the book (or the movie) The Big Short: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short
cynicalkane 10y ago
> I'm not sure sociology would still have its credibility intact if it were to have as many failures as economics A lot of sociology is unfalsifiable. However, this is a field in which many people still look up to Marx--a sociologist whose predictions were falsified in a rather spectacular way. Foundational microeconomic theories, however, are easily verified in many everyday cases and frequently used to make money in practice. Furthermore note that we're pretty sure about when the foundations apply and when they don't. Being able to say "I know when this is true" is a very powerful thing. The non-economic side of sociology can't say anything like that.
- stewbrew 10y ago
  1. Marx wasn't a sociologist. 2. There are quite a few economists around that would wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that his predictions were falsified. 3. Microeconomic theories are falsified every day in actual interactions. It just doesn't matter. 4. Those who say they know what's true are either ... whatever. They most likely aren't scientists at work.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
I agree with this, they aren't much different. Economics is a social science. Economists, like Sociologists, have trouble predicting the future and the past. The only thing, in my opinion, that separates Economics from Sociology is that for economic activity to take place there's also a hard substance that can be tracked, eg. money, but also other goods or services. Sociology is the social science that focuses on everything else in the field that isn't that. Sociology is Economics poor cousin, as it were.

by jahaja 10y ago

trendia 10y ago

> relationship between economics and finance in a classical "follow the money" trail of thought. What specifically are you claiming?

jahaja 10y ago
That the study of economics has a strong connection to both capital and power while sociology is more academic/institutional and thus less influential.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  This. In spades. J.K. Galbraith (an economist himself) has claimed largely the same himself, and he's hardly the only one (within the field). (Update) Some examples: https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/tag/economists/ https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/tag/economists/
- trendia 10y ago
  Except for Stiglitz, Borjas, Piketty, etc.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  True dat. Economics has a number of reformers, in endless battle with an elite who make their names and fortunes by telling power what it wants to hear (and dressing it up with shamanistic differential equations to give the appearance of credibility).

1337biz 10y ago

> In fact I'm not sure sociology would still have its credibility intact if it were to have as many failures as economics have had just the latest 20 years or so. We are here back at the fundamental mathification problem. Economists have understood that as long as their formulas look scientific enough, they can influence with their results policy makers et al.. Sociology rarely present their research in terms of the broad and universal truth as the economists do. So while Economists' results look rigorous on paper, reality still proves it often wrong.

kome 10y ago
That's so true. Economics copies hard science in its methods instead of its ends...

eanzenberg 10y ago

Please separate fundamental economic research with political economic decision-making. Good economic research improves tries to model real behavior. This doesn't stop politicians from cherry-picking research articles to verify their sometimes incorrect worldviews. This is analogous to complaining that climate researchers aren't rigorous because some subset of politicians claim it isn't manmade and point to some articles which support their claims.

xg15 10y ago
Then where were all the economists that raised alarm bells about the upcoming financial crisis but were silenced by ignorant politicians?
- dgellow 10y ago
  You might be interested by the book (or the movie) The Big Short: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short

cynicalkane 10y ago

> I'm not sure sociology would still have its credibility intact if it were to have as many failures as economics A lot of sociology is unfalsifiable. However, this is a field in which many people still look up to Marx--a sociologist whose predictions were falsified in a rather spectacular way. Foundational microeconomic theories, however, are easily verified in many everyday cases and frequently used to make money in practice. Furthermore note that we're pretty sure about when the foundations apply and when they don't. Being able to say "I know when this is true" is a very powerful thing. The non-economic side of sociology can't say anything like that.

stewbrew 10y ago
1. Marx wasn't a sociologist. 2. There are quite a few economists around that would wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that his predictions were falsified. 3. Microeconomic theories are falsified every day in actual interactions. It just doesn't matter. 4. Those who say they know what's true are either ... whatever. They most likely aren't scientists at work.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

I agree with this, they aren't much different. Economics is a social science. Economists, like Sociologists, have trouble predicting the future and the past. The only thing, in my opinion, that separates Economics from Sociology is that for economic activity to take place there's also a hard substance that can be tracked, eg. money, but also other goods or services. Sociology is the social science that focuses on everything else in the field that isn't that. Sociology is Economics poor cousin, as it were.