5 ms·

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences. Economists are all too often preoccupied with petty mathematical problems of interest only to themselves. This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex questions posed by the world we live in." Piketty T. "Capital in the 21st century", p. 36.

throwaway7645 9y ago
Not sure if that quotation inspires much confidence. Economics has math behind it. Subjects like Sociology have none of the rigor of math and are thus a large waste of time.
- jbooth 9y ago
  The takeaway is that the math used in econ obscures the truth while lending a fake gravitas to pure opinion. At least sociology is honest that they're going pure opinion.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  The math is a red herring. It's the buried assumptions that underpin the math which is where the real bullshit usually lies.
- lottin 9y ago
  Exactly. The answer is not less mathematics, but more empirical work.
- olavk 9y ago
  This is exactly the fallacy he is addressing. Math = rigor, so clearly the discipline which uses the most math is the most rigorous, right? But actually math is only useful when it is based on a useful model of reality. If the underlying assumptions are unfounded or faulty, then math does not help you at all.
- p4bl0 9y ago
  Do you imply that philosophy and sociology as disciplines are not rigorous? This shows a very weak knowledge of those disciplines, and of maths-focused economics if you still believe that maths = rigor.
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    Not philosophy, but sociology yes.
mabub24 9y ago
Economics as a discipline is ultimately a form of humanistic understanding. The ideal of scientific rigor is certainly laudable, but it is nonetheless an ideal for the discipline in general. One of the two forms of understanding, humanistic and scientific, is not better than the other. But they require different questions and, as a result, often lead to different answers through different methods, one of which is interpretation, or, understanding the use and uses of something within a constellation of rules and history. Economics, in general, works, but we must be sure of the particular ways it works. The discipline raises the questions of philosophy of mathematics and logic (and thus we should say language). How do mathematical models relate to the world? Is it the Tractatus, or Philosophical Investigations? I wonder if economics students are ever assigned readings of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The latter part of Ray Monk's biography on him touches on many hilarious debates between him and his students, including Alan Turing, around these questions.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  When you're attempting social engineering, one form is better than the other. If your predictions consistently fail, you're not doing good science. If you want to claim you're not doing science at all but standup comedy or literature, that's fine. But that's not how economics is presented to the public. It's always "We must do [unpopular thing] to get [defined outcome] because [economics is truth]." If there's no empirical basis for any of that, the entire narrative is plain political fraud.
  - chibg10 9y ago
    >If your predictions consistently fail, you're not doing good science. I agree with where you're going, but I think the better phrasing would be "If your predictions consistently fail, your scientific theory isn't very good" Good science usually involves a lot of failure before it provides good theory. This doesn't excuse incredible overselling of economic models by economists though.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > The ideal of scientific rigor is certainly laudable There is no scientific rigor so there is nothing to laud. Economics is on the same level as astrology in that "math" is used to gain the appearance and legitimacy of "science". > The discipline raises the questions of philosophy of mathematics and logic (and thus we should say language). How do mathematical models relate to the world? Is it the Tractatus, or Philosophical Investigations? The problem has nothing to do with mathematical models. It has to do with testability and reproducibility.
elmar 9y ago
for a completely diferent view on economics I recomend the book "Basic Economics"[1] written by Thomas Sowell [2] 704 pages without a single mathematical formula or graph. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

throwaway7645 9y ago

Not sure if that quotation inspires much confidence. Economics has math behind it. Subjects like Sociology have none of the rigor of math and are thus a large waste of time.

jbooth 9y ago
The takeaway is that the math used in econ obscures the truth while lending a fake gravitas to pure opinion. At least sociology is honest that they're going pure opinion.
crdoconnor 9y ago
The math is a red herring. It's the buried assumptions that underpin the math which is where the real bullshit usually lies.
lottin 9y ago
Exactly. The answer is not less mathematics, but more empirical work.
olavk 9y ago
This is exactly the fallacy he is addressing. Math = rigor, so clearly the discipline which uses the most math is the most rigorous, right? But actually math is only useful when it is based on a useful model of reality. If the underlying assumptions are unfounded or faulty, then math does not help you at all.
p4bl0 9y ago
Do you imply that philosophy and sociology as disciplines are not rigorous? This shows a very weak knowledge of those disciplines, and of maths-focused economics if you still believe that maths = rigor.
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  Not philosophy, but sociology yes.

mabub24 9y ago

Economics as a discipline is ultimately a form of humanistic understanding. The ideal of scientific rigor is certainly laudable, but it is nonetheless an ideal for the discipline in general. One of the two forms of understanding, humanistic and scientific, is not better than the other. But they require different questions and, as a result, often lead to different answers through different methods, one of which is interpretation, or, understanding the use and uses of something within a constellation of rules and history. Economics, in general, works, but we must be sure of the particular ways it works. The discipline raises the questions of philosophy of mathematics and logic (and thus we should say language). How do mathematical models relate to the world? Is it the Tractatus, or Philosophical Investigations? I wonder if economics students are ever assigned readings of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The latter part of Ray Monk's biography on him touches on many hilarious debates between him and his students, including Alan Turing, around these questions.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
When you're attempting social engineering, one form is better than the other. If your predictions consistently fail, you're not doing good science. If you want to claim you're not doing science at all but standup comedy or literature, that's fine. But that's not how economics is presented to the public. It's always "We must do [unpopular thing] to get [defined outcome] because [economics is truth]." If there's no empirical basis for any of that, the entire narrative is plain political fraud.
- chibg10 9y ago
  >If your predictions consistently fail, you're not doing good science. I agree with where you're going, but I think the better phrasing would be "If your predictions consistently fail, your scientific theory isn't very good" Good science usually involves a lot of failure before it provides good theory. This doesn't excuse incredible overselling of economic models by economists though.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> The ideal of scientific rigor is certainly laudable There is no scientific rigor so there is nothing to laud. Economics is on the same level as astrology in that "math" is used to gain the appearance and legitimacy of "science". > The discipline raises the questions of philosophy of mathematics and logic (and thus we should say language). How do mathematical models relate to the world? Is it the Tractatus, or Philosophical Investigations? The problem has nothing to do with mathematical models. It has to do with testability and reproducibility.

elmar 9y ago

for a completely diferent view on economics I recomend the book "Basic Economics"[1] written by Thomas Sowell [2] 704 pages without a single mathematical formula or graph. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell