4 ms·

Because economics has always been utterly useless in any practical sense. It makes no testable predictions and is no more scientific than any theology. Only bec

Because economics has always been utterly useless in any practical sense. It makes no testable predictions and is no more scientific than any theology. Only because it clothes its dogmas in symbolic notation is it accorded even the slightest bit of respect. The sooner we jettison it from our epistenic frames, the more quickly we will return to something that at least partially resembles sanity.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I believe that Economics should be a subset of Psychology. It mystifies me how Psych or Sociology classes arent required for a major. One would think that practitioners of a field essentially about human behavior would have insight into actual human behavior. And you would be wrong. Humans are replace by the mythical rational agent You are correct though. Economists are so proud of their elegant equations that they won't let questions like "Does this model accurately measure reality" stop them.
- cassowary 10y ago
  Psychology students aren't required to study physics, despite most psychologists believing that psychology is basically just physics at an abstraction
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    A deeper knowledge of physics wouldn't offer much new insight into psychology. A deeper knowledge of psychology and/or sociology can help you predict someone's behavior. Instead of assuming utility maximizing "rational" agents, you may be able to more accurately model human behavior.
matt4077 10y ago
> It makes no testable predictions That's not true. There are, for example, GDP growth forecasts published by almost all central banks and many other institutions. They are pretty wrong, most of the time. But they are made, and falsifying them has been pretty easy in the past. There are many more theories in economics that are, in principle, testable and falsifiable. The problem is that it's difficult to run controlled "experiments" on interventions. You never have a control group in the strict sense, and everything is connected to everything else.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  There's accidental wrongness and then there's politically motivated "useful" wrongness: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8rBinMCcAEO59f.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8rBinMCcAEO59f.jpg
RoyTyrell 10y ago
> it clothes its dogmas in symbolic notation Are you talking about the Austrians whom try to prove their ideas with praxeology?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I believe that Economics should be a subset of Psychology. It mystifies me how Psych or Sociology classes arent required for a major. One would think that practitioners of a field essentially about human behavior would have insight into actual human behavior. And you would be wrong. Humans are replace by the mythical rational agent You are correct though. Economists are so proud of their elegant equations that they won't let questions like "Does this model accurately measure reality" stop them.

cassowary 10y ago
Psychology students aren't required to study physics, despite most psychologists believing that psychology is basically just physics at an abstraction
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  A deeper knowledge of physics wouldn't offer much new insight into psychology. A deeper knowledge of psychology and/or sociology can help you predict someone's behavior. Instead of assuming utility maximizing "rational" agents, you may be able to more accurately model human behavior.

matt4077 10y ago

> It makes no testable predictions That's not true. There are, for example, GDP growth forecasts published by almost all central banks and many other institutions. They are pretty wrong, most of the time. But they are made, and falsifying them has been pretty easy in the past. There are many more theories in economics that are, in principle, testable and falsifiable. The problem is that it's difficult to run controlled "experiments" on interventions. You never have a control group in the strict sense, and everything is connected to everything else.

crdoconnor 10y ago
There's accidental wrongness and then there's politically motivated "useful" wrongness: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8rBinMCcAEO59f.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8rBinMCcAEO59f.jpg

RoyTyrell 10y ago

> it clothes its dogmas in symbolic notation Are you talking about the Austrians whom try to prove their ideas with praxeology?