6 ms·
That's the vibe of the article, but of course it's nonsense. Economists' objective is to collect observations and use that to build predictive theories. Theref
by fwdpropaganda 8y ago
That's the vibe of the article, but of course it's nonsense.
Economists' objective is to collect observations and use that to build predictive theories. Therefore in intent (and largely in method, depending on the area of economy) they are exactly like scientists. Whether they are successful at it or not is another question.
In practice economists guess a lot, as do priests and research scientists, and many other people. (Clarification: I use here "research scientists" to distinguish them from people who have been trained as scientists but in their day-to-day don't really occupy themselves with questions with unknown answers. Of course, those people don't guess at all. They are usually either teacher/professors or engineers.)
- cdancette 8y agowhat's not nonsense is to view humans as rational beings, and the free market as the perfect system. What it says is that economists should include more psychology and less mathematics in their theories.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago> what's not nonsense is to view humans as rational beings, and the free market as the perfect system. > What it says is that economists should include more psychology and less mathematics in their theories. Those are some really groundbreaking ideas, I can't believe no one has thought of that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
- cdancette 8y agoOf course some people thought of this. That's explanained in the article
- Matticus_Rex 8y agoI've yet to meet an economist who doesn't accept bounded rationality (as opposed to the idea that people are perfectly rational).
- DataWorker 8y agoYou should learn more about science. Things like experiments and randomized trials make a big difference.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago> You should learn more about science. Things like experiments and randomized trials make a big difference. I was a scientist (physicist) until 4 years ago. Which bit exactly do you think I need to learn?
- DataWorker 8y agoYou said that in intent and methodology they are like scientists. My point was that the use of random assignment and the experimental method makes them completely different from scientists. Experimentation using random assignment is a different beast than collection of extant or real world data. You may disagree but if you do I think you should read a bit more about the importance of these methodologies.
- hn0 8y agoNeoclassical economics still has no plausible answer for the Anything Goes theorem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_t... Decades after the findings were published. I find it hard to conclude this would be the method of a established science. Not to mention that many of “mainstream” economics is at odds with accounting principles.
- fwdpropaganda 8y agoI'm very confused by your post. > Neoclassical economics still has no plausible answer for the Anything Goes theorem: What should it be answering? You linked to a theorem, not a question. And even if it were a question that a certain theory doesn't have an answer to, that's perfectly normal. Theories come with their domains of applicability. Go outside that and they "don't have an answer". For a comparison to physics, that would be like saying "centuries after the findings were published, Newton's theory still can't explain the speed of light being the same in every reference frame, I find it hard to conclude this is the method of an established science." > I find it hard to conclude this would be the method of a established science. What are you referring to when you say "this"? The thing you linked to is a theorem, not a method. I think you might be assuming from me knowledge and context that I don't have.
- crdoconnor 8y agoThe point about them being priests is that economists are subjected to incentives to reach specific incorrect conclusions which physicists are not. One example is the notion that raising the minimum wage does not cause unemployment - there is a massive amount of pressure put on economists to reach the opposite conclusion because raising it hits profit margins in a big way. Krueger talked about the way economists reacted to his paper - many acted as if they had been betrayed. Similar stuff happens in physics over pet theories but there is no overarching imperative driven by access to prestigious jobs, money, publications, etc.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago> Krueger talked about the way economists reacted to his paper - many acted as if they had been betrayed. Link please?
- AlexCoventry 8y agoSure, everyone makes guesses. The question is, are they held accountable for their guesses? Is there an epistemological framework mandating an empirical basis for the guesses, and which brings the guesses into closer alignment with reality over time? I don't see any evidence that economics has a robust framework of that sort.