14 ms·

The problem is that economics as a field spans from sociology and mass-psychology (almost impossible reason about, fully quantify or prove anything in a scienti

by m12k 4y ago

The problem is that economics as a field spans from sociology and mass-psychology (almost impossible reason about, fully quantify or prove anything in a scientific manner) to mathematics (easy to reason about, model and publish results - but at the risk of not actually modeling the real world). The incentives of the academic world nudges researchers toward the math side of the field, but the risk in that is that the field becomes disconnected from reality.

ur-whale 4y ago
> the risk in that is that the field becomes disconnected from reality it's not a risk, it's a measurable fact.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  What's the measure?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology.
    - ur-whale 4y ago
      >The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology. yup. Physics: apply force F to projectile of mass M and know in advance where and when it'll land modulo a tiny error margin. Economics: raise the interest rates by X%, wait unknown amount of time Y, observe state of the system after time Y, formulate complex theory as to why action led to "cause", go write a paper about it. Get wined and dined by policy makers who see great benefit in your "explanation". The phenomenon is not new BTW, oracle, druids and shamans have occupied that ecological niche for as long as there has been tribes and leaders needing to justify their actions to the masses. They just changed their names in the 20th century to sound more respectable.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      Were it reduced to "predictions". It isn't. And people take for granted a lot of popular concepts borne of the study as though it was always known. E.g. the relationship between interest rates & exchange rates, supply and demand, etc.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        Any "science" that can't reliably make reliably make predictions isn't a science. That's the litmus test.
        slothtrop 4y ago
        You've just eliminated all social sciences, by your metric of "reliably". edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. edit2: you all forgot that medical and nutritional science has a reproducibility crisis, it's no less "science" for it. Add to the fact, the notion that nothing is reproducible in Economics is false. See for example: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experiment-reproduced-thousands-times https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experime... , https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918
        ur-whale 4y ago
        > You've just eliminated all social sciences Because they're indeed not sciences. They call themselves that to attract funding. Predictive power and reproducibility are defining characteristics of sciences. Social "sciences" have neither and therefore aren't sciences.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Absolutely. > edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. No thanks.
        slothtrop 4y ago
        reproducibility has improved over time as well - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350
    - greenglass 4y ago
      Can you point me to any good quantitative research on astrology? Steelman style treatment, preferably. I haven’t actually looked into astrology with much seriousness. I worry that I might be like one of those people who dismiss economics because of envy or some other weird psychological mechanism. It sounds like you might have some information to share?
    - _just7_ 4y ago
      That's about as accurate as saying Medicine doesn't make any more reliable predictions than astrology
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        That's about as accurate as saying "nuh-uh."
    - initplus 4y ago
      Economists cannot predict exactly when market crashes will occur. Is volcanology not a real science because volcanologists cannot predict the moment a volcano will erupt? In both cases scientific study can help us determine when the risk is higher or lower, and can tell us definitively when one does occur. But no field that studies stochastic processes like markets or volcanic activity can make 100% certainty predictions years in advance. These fields are all dealing with probabilities, asking for a yes or no answer is missing the point.
goodpoint 4y ago
> sociology and mass-psychology (almost impossible reason about, fully quantify or prove anything in a scientific manner) On the contrary, sociology is way more scientific than economics in building probabilistic models of social behaviors. Such models are quantitative and testable. Economics is opinion based by design.
- bobcostas55 4y ago
  This is complete nonsense, economics is by far the strongest social science field in terms of empirical methodology. Pretty much all the modern causal inference methods were developed in econometrics. Try taking a look at the big econ journals (like Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, or Journal of Finance) and I assure you you won't find anything resembling arbitrary "opinions".
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    There is a simple method to disprove your wild claims that comes from system theory. Regardless of the field, be it economics, cookery or mechanical engineering, you can ask a pool of experts: - How can I solve problem X? What will happen if I do nothing? - How confident are you that the solution will be effective or the prediction will be accurate? The problem X is the input and then you compare predictions and real outputs. There is abundant literature on the effectiveness of economical models and the ability to make prediction and the outcomes are clear: - Economists systematically overestimate their ability to make predictions - There is not even a single economical theory. Economists have different schools of thought that are incompatible with each other (!) There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      > There is not even a single economical theory This applies to all social science. > There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions. This applies to all social science.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by m12k 4y ago

ur-whale 4y ago

> the risk in that is that the field becomes disconnected from reality it's not a risk, it's a measurable fact.

slothtrop 4y ago
What's the measure?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology.
  - ur-whale 4y ago
    >The fact that it doesn't make predictions any more reliably than astrology. yup. Physics: apply force F to projectile of mass M and know in advance where and when it'll land modulo a tiny error margin. Economics: raise the interest rates by X%, wait unknown amount of time Y, observe state of the system after time Y, formulate complex theory as to why action led to "cause", go write a paper about it. Get wined and dined by policy makers who see great benefit in your "explanation". The phenomenon is not new BTW, oracle, druids and shamans have occupied that ecological niche for as long as there has been tribes and leaders needing to justify their actions to the masses. They just changed their names in the 20th century to sound more respectable.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Were it reduced to "predictions". It isn't. And people take for granted a lot of popular concepts borne of the study as though it was always known. E.g. the relationship between interest rates & exchange rates, supply and demand, etc.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Any "science" that can't reliably make reliably make predictions isn't a science. That's the litmus test.
      - slothtrop 4y ago
        You've just eliminated all social sciences, by your metric of "reliably". edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. edit2: you all forgot that medical and nutritional science has a reproducibility crisis, it's no less "science" for it. Add to the fact, the notion that nothing is reproducible in Economics is false. See for example: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experiment-reproduced-thousands-times https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/famous-economics-experime... , https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf0918
        ur-whale 4y ago
        > You've just eliminated all social sciences Because they're indeed not sciences. They call themselves that to attract funding. Predictive power and reproducibility are defining characteristics of sciences. Social "sciences" have neither and therefore aren't sciences.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Absolutely. > edit: your take-away from this should be that you're mis-defining science. No thanks.
        slothtrop 4y ago
        reproducibility has improved over time as well - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20171350
  - greenglass 4y ago
    Can you point me to any good quantitative research on astrology? Steelman style treatment, preferably. I haven’t actually looked into astrology with much seriousness. I worry that I might be like one of those people who dismiss economics because of envy or some other weird psychological mechanism. It sounds like you might have some information to share?
  - _just7_ 4y ago
    That's about as accurate as saying Medicine doesn't make any more reliable predictions than astrology
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That's about as accurate as saying "nuh-uh."
  - initplus 4y ago
    Economists cannot predict exactly when market crashes will occur. Is volcanology not a real science because volcanologists cannot predict the moment a volcano will erupt? In both cases scientific study can help us determine when the risk is higher or lower, and can tell us definitively when one does occur. But no field that studies stochastic processes like markets or volcanic activity can make 100% certainty predictions years in advance. These fields are all dealing with probabilities, asking for a yes or no answer is missing the point.

goodpoint 4y ago

> sociology and mass-psychology (almost impossible reason about, fully quantify or prove anything in a scientific manner) On the contrary, sociology is way more scientific than economics in building probabilistic models of social behaviors. Such models are quantitative and testable. Economics is opinion based by design.

bobcostas55 4y ago
This is complete nonsense, economics is by far the strongest social science field in terms of empirical methodology. Pretty much all the modern causal inference methods were developed in econometrics. Try taking a look at the big econ journals (like Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, or Journal of Finance) and I assure you you won't find anything resembling arbitrary "opinions".
- goodpoint 4y ago
  There is a simple method to disprove your wild claims that comes from system theory. Regardless of the field, be it economics, cookery or mechanical engineering, you can ask a pool of experts: - How can I solve problem X? What will happen if I do nothing? - How confident are you that the solution will be effective or the prediction will be accurate? The problem X is the input and then you compare predictions and real outputs. There is abundant literature on the effectiveness of economical models and the ability to make prediction and the outcomes are clear: - Economists systematically overestimate their ability to make predictions - There is not even a single economical theory. Economists have different schools of thought that are incompatible with each other (!) There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    > There is not even a single economical theory This applies to all social science. > There are countless examples of economists failing to predict the future or having wildly different opinions. This applies to all social science.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]