5 ms·

Taking equations from physics out of context to bolster social science claims isn't unique to psychology, other social sciences like economics have done the sam

Taking equations from physics out of context to bolster social science claims isn't unique to psychology, other social sciences like economics have done the same thing with little more justification. The rationale behind this approach is simple marketing, in that 'using more mathy stuff' will sell better to the general public than non-mathy hand-waving claims will. However, the practioners of this approach don't seem to understand that physical equations are constructed by analysis of empirical experimental and observational data on one hand, and theoretical mathematical development on the other, within limited scopes of applicability. Copying equations from one area of science to another willy-nilly like the article describes is just ridiculous - would cosmologists studying general relatively just plug in quantum mechanical equations in the hope of getting a 'mathy explanation'? Here's another example from 'mathematically sound neoclassical economics', which does the same with 19th century physical science equations: > "The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they substituted economic variables for physical ones. Utility (a measure of economic well-being) took the place of energy; the sum of utility and expenditure replaced potential and kinetic energy. A number of well-known mathematicians and physicists told the economists that there was absolutely no basis for making these substitutions. But the economists ignored such criticisms and proceeded to claim that they had transformed their field of study into a rigorously mathematical scientific discipline." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-economist-has-no-clothes/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-economist-has...

munchler 5y ago
Based on other people in the field whose responses were quoted at the end of the article, I suspect this phenomenon may still be occurring. Specifically: "David Pincus, a psychologist at Chapman University who specializes in the application of chaos theory to psychology" "Stephen Guastello, a psychologist specializing in nonlinear dynamics at Marquette University"
notahacker 5y ago
There are niche heterodox subfields of economics that literally are just a dubious physics analogy (thermoeconomics), but the source's argument that marginal utility theory was copying von Hemholtz is the sort of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not zero citations, baffling confusion of economist Francis Edgeworth with literary writer Maria Edgeworth and a lot of tacked on claims that are laughably false (Jevons certainly didn't believe that "natural resources are inexhaustible: he was actually initially famous for trying to predict when the coal supply would run out!). There are obvious reasons for studies of how money is spent to involve mathematics (though Menger managed to deduce marginal utility theory from first principles without equations) and it's unsurprising some of the equation forms superficially resemble some of the many simple equations of physics. There are much better criticisms of neoclassical economics and the application of neoclassical economics than accusing the early economists of plagiarising another field!
_v7gu 5y ago
>Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth Econophysics is really crank stuff but some people really like to shit on econ without knowing a tenth of the discourse in the field. How can someone not have heard of carbon taxes or balanced growth paths? What's funnier is that you both are revealing that either you don't know the methodology of solving economics models, or don't know what the physics equations represent. Nature acts to minimize convex functions while economic agents move to maximize concave ones. Of course the solutions end up the same. Don't think that our utility functions are correct or actual people act differently? Honestly only having profits to maximize is just a good first order approximation. That's why we have an entire field working on supposedly irrational behavior and backing up everything with data and experiments. Now economics does have its huge problems, but things aren't as simple as this. But if you still see a huge problem, just get your correct model, back your results with data and enjoy getting the Nobel prize.
- choward 5y ago
  > But if you still see a huge problem, just get your correct model, back your results with data and enjoy getting the Nobel prize. The "Nobel prize" for economics isn't a real Nobel prize. It was made up to make economists feel better. From Wikipedia: > He explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econ...
  - _v7gu 5y ago
    > Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being Good thing the prize isn't for Business Administration then. Also ironic, since it's economics which studies anti-trust and gives legitimacy to strike down such practices.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Doesn't really matter in practice, IMO.

munchler 5y ago

Based on other people in the field whose responses were quoted at the end of the article, I suspect this phenomenon may still be occurring. Specifically: "David Pincus, a psychologist at Chapman University who specializes in the application of chaos theory to psychology" "Stephen Guastello, a psychologist specializing in nonlinear dynamics at Marquette University"

notahacker 5y ago

There are niche heterodox subfields of economics that literally are just a dubious physics analogy (thermoeconomics), but the source's argument that marginal utility theory was copying von Hemholtz is the sort of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not zero citations, baffling confusion of economist Francis Edgeworth with literary writer Maria Edgeworth and a lot of tacked on claims that are laughably false (Jevons certainly didn't believe that "natural resources are inexhaustible: he was actually initially famous for trying to predict when the coal supply would run out!). There are obvious reasons for studies of how money is spent to involve mathematics (though Menger managed to deduce marginal utility theory from first principles without equations) and it's unsurprising some of the equation forms superficially resemble some of the many simple equations of physics. There are much better criticisms of neoclassical economics and the application of neoclassical economics than accusing the early economists of plagiarising another field!

_v7gu 5y ago

>Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth Econophysics is really crank stuff but some people really like to shit on econ without knowing a tenth of the discourse in the field. How can someone not have heard of carbon taxes or balanced growth paths? What's funnier is that you both are revealing that either you don't know the methodology of solving economics models, or don't know what the physics equations represent. Nature acts to minimize convex functions while economic agents move to maximize concave ones. Of course the solutions end up the same. Don't think that our utility functions are correct or actual people act differently? Honestly only having profits to maximize is just a good first order approximation. That's why we have an entire field working on supposedly irrational behavior and backing up everything with data and experiments. Now economics does have its huge problems, but things aren't as simple as this. But if you still see a huge problem, just get your correct model, back your results with data and enjoy getting the Nobel prize.

choward 5y ago
> But if you still see a huge problem, just get your correct model, back your results with data and enjoy getting the Nobel prize. The "Nobel prize" for economics isn't a real Nobel prize. It was made up to make economists feel better. From Wikipedia: > He explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econ...
- _v7gu 5y ago
  > Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being Good thing the prize isn't for Business Administration then. Also ironic, since it's economics which studies anti-trust and gives legitimacy to strike down such practices.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Doesn't really matter in practice, IMO.