5 ms·

Thanks for this glib comment, it must be true since you asserted it. Frankly what I find most annoying about this comment is the implicit claim that humans are

by krapht 7y ago

Thanks for this glib comment, it must be true since you asserted it. Frankly what I find most annoying about this comment is the implicit claim that humans are so complex that we can't possibly study it; that our existing scientific method is inadequate to describe economics. Unlike any art economics can make predictions, and we can test the validity of such predictions. That our models are insufficient right now doesn't mean we should cast the whole discipline into the toilet.

redis_mlc 7y ago
> our existing scientific method is inadequate to describe economics. Agreed. > we can test the validity of such predictions. Nope. > we should cast the whole discipline into the toilet. Agreed.
__MatrixMan__ 7y ago
The commenters on either side of yours make it look like doubting the validity of economics is the province of people too lazy to make a real argument. I really don't want to take their side because of how they're presenting it. But somewhere in that idiocy there's a decent point to be made. I've always been a bit uneasy about economics because people's behavior depends on their beliefs, and their behavior as economic agents especially depends on their beliefs about the the economic theory that motivated the design of their habitat. I expect that if a population that grew up in a system designed under assumption X and happened to eat well and always have a roof, then they will behave in a way that confirms theories compatible with X. On the other hand, if they experienced extreme economic strife under leadership that believes in the validity of X, then--as data points--they're more likely to influence economic theory testing in the opposite way. How can you know whether your predictions are correct because they're objectively true about human behavior, versus them being correct because your sample set has been influenced by the same economic theory that motivated the prediction in the first place? Is statistics really so powerful that it can eliminate the circularity from the situation?
Animats 7y ago
The trouble with economics, especially macroeconomics, as a science is that it lacks good predictive power. Science is prediction, not explanation. Economic forecasting ought to work at least as well as weather forecasting, and it doesn't.
IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
Wow. I recommend you read the pretense of knowledge. Economics cannot test predictions because you can't run a city in a lab. You cant control for any variables. In real science, lack of control would disqualify your test immediately. The arrogance on the field and the charlatanism knows no bounds. No wonder they continue to crash societies... yet go on claiming "no one could have foreseen that crisis"

by krapht 7y ago

redis_mlc 7y ago

> our existing scientific method is inadequate to describe economics. Agreed. > we can test the validity of such predictions. Nope. > we should cast the whole discipline into the toilet. Agreed.

__MatrixMan__ 7y ago

The commenters on either side of yours make it look like doubting the validity of economics is the province of people too lazy to make a real argument. I really don't want to take their side because of how they're presenting it. But somewhere in that idiocy there's a decent point to be made. I've always been a bit uneasy about economics because people's behavior depends on their beliefs, and their behavior as economic agents especially depends on their beliefs about the the economic theory that motivated the design of their habitat. I expect that if a population that grew up in a system designed under assumption X and happened to eat well and always have a roof, then they will behave in a way that confirms theories compatible with X. On the other hand, if they experienced extreme economic strife under leadership that believes in the validity of X, then--as data points--they're more likely to influence economic theory testing in the opposite way. How can you know whether your predictions are correct because they're objectively true about human behavior, versus them being correct because your sample set has been influenced by the same economic theory that motivated the prediction in the first place? Is statistics really so powerful that it can eliminate the circularity from the situation?

Animats 7y ago

The trouble with economics, especially macroeconomics, as a science is that it lacks good predictive power. Science is prediction, not explanation. Economic forecasting ought to work at least as well as weather forecasting, and it doesn't.

IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago

Wow. I recommend you read the pretense of knowledge. Economics cannot test predictions because you can't run a city in a lab. You cant control for any variables. In real science, lack of control would disqualify your test immediately. The arrogance on the field and the charlatanism knows no bounds. No wonder they continue to crash societies... yet go on claiming "no one could have foreseen that crisis"