4 ms·

What is it about then?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
neilknowsbest 5y ago
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they understand about what they imagine they can design” -- Hayek
- andresgaitan 5y ago
  Excellent quote
lottin 5y ago
Same as any scientific endeavour, studying a particular phenomenon, which in the case of economics is the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
- edflsafoiewq 5y ago
  It is in the ability to predict novel situations that understanding is tested.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Not really. For example, a model can accurately explain variable X as a function of Z, Y but if Z and Y are exogenous variables, i.e. outside of the scope of the model, then the future behaviour of X cannot be known, despite the fact that we may understand very well the mechanisms by which Z and Y cause X.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Which is why economics is not a science.
      - lottin 5y ago
        Science is the application of the scientific method, and mainstream economics fully adheres to the scientific method. There are heterodox schools, such as the Austrian school, that reject the scientific method, and these are definitely not scientific.
        mcguire 5y ago
        Your model of X, Y, and Z cannot make predictions. How do you validate it?
        lottin 5y ago
        Generally speaking, statistical models are validated by measuring how well/bad they fit the data, for example, studying the residuals and performing statistical tests. Predictive power can be estimated by using the model to predict known outcomes (using out-of-sample data).
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        Economics is a social science and as such, is not really amenable to the methods of falsification or experimentation that work well in physics or chemistry. In short, it's not really a science. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do your best to be logical and factual as much as possible, but at the end of the day you will produce mostly unfalsifiable theorizing. Really you need more modest goals, for example to at least try to approach the subject objectively rather than via sentimental moralizing. Even that is a massive effort. Imagine a physicist decrying how "wrong" it is for gravity to be weaker than the other forces. You would laugh at such a person and immediately classify them as not a real physicist. So you can use that as a filter to exclude much of heterodox economics and economists as a start. That's the battle being waged -- objectivity -- not falsifiability.
        lottin 5y ago
        If social sciences are not sciences, what are they? Please, explain. Also I'd like to know how falsifiability applies to the big bang theory. Thank you!
missedthecue 5y ago
"To most people, economics is a dull science full of statistics and jargon, mainly concerned with money and designed to answer a narrow (but important) set of questions. To economists, economics is a powerful tool for understanding why armies run away, voters are ignorant, and divorce rates rise, as well as solving practical problems such as how not to get mugged. Its theme is not money but reason- the implications, especially the nonobvious implications, of the fact that humans act rationally. Or to put it more formally: Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the assumption that individuals have objectives and tend to choose the correct way to achieve them." Excerpt from Hidden Order, a book which explains economic concepts to non-economists.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  Explanations are useless if they can't make predictions. Non-falsifiable explanation aren't worth the paper they're printed on. While it's a nice quote above, I suspect many economists would disagree with that reduction of their field to being only backwards looking.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > Explanations are useless if they can't make predictions. Nonsense. Most sciences aren't about making predictions. Another example is linguistics. Linguists have reconstructed languages long extinct and figured out how they evolved into modern languages. Yet, they can't predict how these languages will evolve in the future. Does this mean these explanations useless? No. Why should they be useless? They may not be of interest to you, but that doesn't mean they're useless.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      I disagree with you, strongly, but I'll just note this -- you appear to espouse the view (in you last sentence) that utility is the only value something can have. There are many things to know that lack utility but still hold value somehow. Useless does not mean worthless; but science really is about prediction.
tacostakohashi 5y ago
It's mainly about allocating resources.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they understand about what they imagine they can design” -- Hayek

andresgaitan 5y ago
Excellent quote

lottin 5y ago

Same as any scientific endeavour, studying a particular phenomenon, which in the case of economics is the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

edflsafoiewq 5y ago
It is in the ability to predict novel situations that understanding is tested.
- lottin 5y ago
  Not really. For example, a model can accurately explain variable X as a function of Z, Y but if Z and Y are exogenous variables, i.e. outside of the scope of the model, then the future behaviour of X cannot be known, despite the fact that we may understand very well the mechanisms by which Z and Y cause X.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Which is why economics is not a science.
    - lottin 5y ago
      Science is the application of the scientific method, and mainstream economics fully adheres to the scientific method. There are heterodox schools, such as the Austrian school, that reject the scientific method, and these are definitely not scientific.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Your model of X, Y, and Z cannot make predictions. How do you validate it?
        lottin 5y ago
        Generally speaking, statistical models are validated by measuring how well/bad they fit the data, for example, studying the residuals and performing statistical tests. Predictive power can be estimated by using the model to predict known outcomes (using out-of-sample data).
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        Economics is a social science and as such, is not really amenable to the methods of falsification or experimentation that work well in physics or chemistry. In short, it's not really a science. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do your best to be logical and factual as much as possible, but at the end of the day you will produce mostly unfalsifiable theorizing. Really you need more modest goals, for example to at least try to approach the subject objectively rather than via sentimental moralizing. Even that is a massive effort. Imagine a physicist decrying how "wrong" it is for gravity to be weaker than the other forces. You would laugh at such a person and immediately classify them as not a real physicist. So you can use that as a filter to exclude much of heterodox economics and economists as a start. That's the battle being waged -- objectivity -- not falsifiability.
        lottin 5y ago
        If social sciences are not sciences, what are they? Please, explain. Also I'd like to know how falsifiability applies to the big bang theory. Thank you!

missedthecue 5y ago

"To most people, economics is a dull science full of statistics and jargon, mainly concerned with money and designed to answer a narrow (but important) set of questions. To economists, economics is a powerful tool for understanding why armies run away, voters are ignorant, and divorce rates rise, as well as solving practical problems such as how not to get mugged. Its theme is not money but reason- the implications, especially the nonobvious implications, of the fact that humans act rationally. Or to put it more formally: Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the assumption that individuals have objectives and tend to choose the correct way to achieve them." Excerpt from Hidden Order, a book which explains economic concepts to non-economists.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
Explanations are useless if they can't make predictions. Non-falsifiable explanation aren't worth the paper they're printed on. While it's a nice quote above, I suspect many economists would disagree with that reduction of their field to being only backwards looking.
- lottin 5y ago
  > Explanations are useless if they can't make predictions. Nonsense. Most sciences aren't about making predictions. Another example is linguistics. Linguists have reconstructed languages long extinct and figured out how they evolved into modern languages. Yet, they can't predict how these languages will evolve in the future. Does this mean these explanations useless? No. Why should they be useless? They may not be of interest to you, but that doesn't mean they're useless.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    I disagree with you, strongly, but I'll just note this -- you appear to espouse the view (in you last sentence) that utility is the only value something can have. There are many things to know that lack utility but still hold value somehow. Useless does not mean worthless; but science really is about prediction.

tacostakohashi 5y ago

It's mainly about allocating resources.