5 ms·

> In science you have the scientific method, control and experimental studies that can validate a hypothesis. Astronomy, Cosmology, Epidemiology, Geology, Econ

> In science you have the scientific method, control and experimental studies that can validate a hypothesis. Astronomy, Cosmology, Epidemiology, Geology, Economics. You definitely can’t do experiments in cosmology and good luck with epidemiology or geology. Microeconomics is actually much, much more experimental than most of the rest of that list.

dredmorbius 8y ago
You can make predictions, then test these based on observational data. The case of the validation of the age of the Earth, something widely accepted as unknowable as late as 1900, and established to within 1% of its accepted value by the 1950s, is a case in point. It is not possible to go back in time to measure the age of the Earth. It is possible to combine measurements and observations, of radioactive decay, of magnetic switching magnetic orientation in seafloor cores, of corresponding coastlines, of similar (or different) fossil records, of genetic drift noted DNA sequences, of rocks obtained from other bodies (including the Moon and Mars). Naomi Oreskes has written of the development of plate tectonics from crackpot theory to the foundational concept of all Terrestrial geology, over fifty years, being formally accepted in 1965. The discovery of helium, Dr. John Snow's Broad Street pump observations, validation of Einstein's space-time predictions through eclipse observations and GPS clock desynchronisation, of black holes, exoplanatary discoveries, use of Cephid variables to validated the expanding universe hypothesis, and measurement of gravity waves, would be examples of scientific experiments in the fields of astronomy,cosmology, epidemiology, and geology. Economics needs to admit to falsifiability or stop considering itself a science. The primary barrier to that latter is that special pleading allows economics to continue entertaining numerous highly-attractive falsehoods. Noteably: exemption to the laws of thermodynamics. As well as lesser sins including an intentional ignorance of much of its own history and formative theory. Disclaimer: Degreed in economics.
- xapata 8y ago
  If you've got an economics degree, you should know that it isn't a person not monolithic. Many economists "admit" to falsifiability.
  - tomrod 8y ago
    Hear here. To add to this, econometricians and statisticians are leading the calls for causal inference. Economists embedded in Google, Netflix, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are at the forefront of the fields, speaking to how theory and practice play out (sometimes called techonomists). While economics doesn't lend itself a physics or psychology laboratory to teach its basic principles, that doesn't mean the field isn't concerned with causal impact of policies suggested by theory. Personally, my observation is that making sure falsifiability and generalizability of theory is at the heart of modern economic discussion.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    I'm referring to the curriculum as generally taught at the university level. Samuelson & Nordhaus, as I studied it; today likely Mankiw or Krugman. Or if you prefer to state another text, please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
    - xapata 8y ago
      You mean Econ 101 with Mankiw's textbook? That's not a curriculum, that's a single class. Besides, I doubt any undergraduate program really demonstrates what a professional researcher does.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        You're being peculiarly careful to reject what I say without answering my questions or offer any concrete alternatives. Again: if you prefer to state another text (or texts), please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
        xapata 8y ago
        You might have edited the comment after I read it. Or maybe I just read too quickly. In my view, the field of economics is more defined by journal articles and discussions among economists than by textbooks. For many economists, a theory is more compelling if it is accompanied by a formal model, an illustration of the implied dynamics, and a discussion of how observed history is (in)consistent with those dynamics.

dredmorbius 8y ago

You can make predictions, then test these based on observational data. The case of the validation of the age of the Earth, something widely accepted as unknowable as late as 1900, and established to within 1% of its accepted value by the 1950s, is a case in point. It is not possible to go back in time to measure the age of the Earth. It is possible to combine measurements and observations, of radioactive decay, of magnetic switching magnetic orientation in seafloor cores, of corresponding coastlines, of similar (or different) fossil records, of genetic drift noted DNA sequences, of rocks obtained from other bodies (including the Moon and Mars). Naomi Oreskes has written of the development of plate tectonics from crackpot theory to the foundational concept of all Terrestrial geology, over fifty years, being formally accepted in 1965. The discovery of helium, Dr. John Snow's Broad Street pump observations, validation of Einstein's space-time predictions through eclipse observations and GPS clock desynchronisation, of black holes, exoplanatary discoveries, use of Cephid variables to validated the expanding universe hypothesis, and measurement of gravity waves, would be examples of scientific experiments in the fields of astronomy,cosmology, epidemiology, and geology. Economics needs to admit to falsifiability or stop considering itself a science. The primary barrier to that latter is that special pleading allows economics to continue entertaining numerous highly-attractive falsehoods. Noteably: exemption to the laws of thermodynamics. As well as lesser sins including an intentional ignorance of much of its own history and formative theory. Disclaimer: Degreed in economics.

xapata 8y ago
If you've got an economics degree, you should know that it isn't a person not monolithic. Many economists "admit" to falsifiability.
- tomrod 8y ago
  Hear here. To add to this, econometricians and statisticians are leading the calls for causal inference. Economists embedded in Google, Netflix, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are at the forefront of the fields, speaking to how theory and practice play out (sometimes called techonomists). While economics doesn't lend itself a physics or psychology laboratory to teach its basic principles, that doesn't mean the field isn't concerned with causal impact of policies suggested by theory. Personally, my observation is that making sure falsifiability and generalizability of theory is at the heart of modern economic discussion.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  I'm referring to the curriculum as generally taught at the university level. Samuelson & Nordhaus, as I studied it; today likely Mankiw or Krugman. Or if you prefer to state another text, please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
  - xapata 8y ago
    You mean Econ 101 with Mankiw's textbook? That's not a curriculum, that's a single class. Besides, I doubt any undergraduate program really demonstrates what a professional researcher does.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      You're being peculiarly careful to reject what I say without answering my questions or offer any concrete alternatives. Again: if you prefer to state another text (or texts), please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
      - xapata 8y ago
        You might have edited the comment after I read it. Or maybe I just read too quickly. In my view, the field of economics is more defined by journal articles and discussions among economists than by textbooks. For many economists, a theory is more compelling if it is accompanied by a formal model, an illustration of the implied dynamics, and a discussion of how observed history is (in)consistent with those dynamics.