3 ms·

One problem I have with economics is the tendency to proclaim proof after just one data point and that too in hindsight. Just like this particular article is d

• qubex 9y ago
  The real problem with economics (as perceived by somebody that first studied applied mathematics, and then macroeconomics, and then went into management) is that it styles itself an annex of mathematics, but lacks the invariants necessary to construct the deep symmetries typical of physics or other hard sciences. We literally have nothing to work with other than those superficial relationships econometricians can measure and somehow boost into statistical significance.
  • dnautics 9y ago
    Have you seen economic equations from, say an econ 3XX class? There's variables all over the place, under a fraction, inside an exponent, with zero regard to dimensional analysis or what meaning conversion constant ought to have (or the numerical tolerances of those equations). Then you take a derivative of that formula.
    • qubex 9y ago
      Yes I have. Your observations are not universal but pretty common. The whole field is littered with a hodge-podge of cobbled-together numerical coincidences fetishised to the level of universal truths. It can be quite embarrassing when one sits down and tries to actually do defensible, provable mathematics. That is why I eventually migrated towards management (of the family firm, not coincidentally). Much of macroeconomics, at least most of it prior to the agent-based models now being produced and analysed, is notionalism.
      • dnautics 9y ago
        Confirmation bias may be unhealthy but that one sentence gave me a good chuckle.