3 ms·

Economics can attract people making wild claims because it is difficult to truly prove or disprove some claims in the subject. Still, there is good science don

Economics can attract people making wild claims because it is difficult to truly prove or disprove some claims in the subject. Still, there is good science done in economics, though conducting science is more difficult in fields like economics than others. I think it is important to distinguish between microeconomics and macroeconomics here. It is possible to conduct controlled experiments in microeconomics, but in general it is difficult and often impossible to conduct controlled experiments in macroeconomics. For example, you simply cannot take half the population and apply one policy to them and take the other half and apply a "placebo" and see what the results are. The scale and ethical problems prevent such experiments. Instead, macroeconomists like to use "natural experiments" (as they call it) that occur at discontinuities in current policies. For example, let's say that some policy has an income cut off at X USD/year. People making less than that can use the program, but people making more than that cannot. You can look at people making X-1 USD/year and compare them to people making X+1 USD/year. The slight difference in income is basically negligible, so in effect you are studying the effect of the policy, but only at a particular income level unfortunately. Note that the difficulties using the scientific method continue to other fields like weather prediction. In these fields scientists can conduct observational studies but not experimental (controlled) studies, since we do not have the means (or even the desire) to effect the phenomena in such a way to verify or falsify some questions directly. Indirect (and far more clever) methods are still possible, though.

dr_faustus 6y ago
But isnt meteorology a good example of a science capable of producing models with high accuracy (albeit just for a couple of days in advance) in absence of lab conditions. I can't think of a single economic model as accurate as modern weather models (or even climate models).
- jjk166 6y ago
  Well if we had recessions as frequently as we had hurricanes, I imagine we'd get quite good at predicting them
- atrettel 6y ago
  Yes, you are correct. Weather forecasting is much more accurate (at least in the short term) than economic forecasting. My point wasn't about comparing the accuracy of the predictions between meteorology and economics, though. It was about pointing out the similar difficulties in using the scientific method. For example, someone might come up with some sort of hypothesis about what would happen if a category 5 hurricane appears in an odd location in the Atlantic, but nobody would then attempt to create that kind of hurricane just to see what happens. That would be an ethical and logistical nightmare. Instead, they would rely on some sort of simulation to test the hypothesis. This is the same kind of problem as in economics, but for meteorology the equations you are using to make the prediction are obviously on a much more solid footing.

dr_faustus 6y ago

But isnt meteorology a good example of a science capable of producing models with high accuracy (albeit just for a couple of days in advance) in absence of lab conditions. I can't think of a single economic model as accurate as modern weather models (or even climate models).

jjk166 6y ago
Well if we had recessions as frequently as we had hurricanes, I imagine we'd get quite good at predicting them
atrettel 6y ago
Yes, you are correct. Weather forecasting is much more accurate (at least in the short term) than economic forecasting. My point wasn't about comparing the accuracy of the predictions between meteorology and economics, though. It was about pointing out the similar difficulties in using the scientific method. For example, someone might come up with some sort of hypothesis about what would happen if a category 5 hurricane appears in an odd location in the Atlantic, but nobody would then attempt to create that kind of hurricane just to see what happens. That would be an ethical and logistical nightmare. Instead, they would rely on some sort of simulation to test the hypothesis. This is the same kind of problem as in economics, but for meteorology the equations you are using to make the prediction are obviously on a much more solid footing.