3 ms·

The problem with economics is that every problem becomes a wicked problem. You just can't test your theories in a controlled manner. And everything has confound

by bena 4y ago

The problem with economics is that every problem becomes a wicked problem. You just can't test your theories in a controlled manner. And everything has confounding factors.

ur-whale 4y ago
> The problem with economics is that every problem becomes a wicked problem. You just can't test your theories in a controlled manner. And everything has confounding factors. Or, to put it simply: economics is not a scientific discipline for any generally accepted definition of the term.
tomrod 4y ago
Esther Duflo won the Nobel prize for implementations of randomized controlled trials in a very non-wicked way. Experimental economics is a mature and active field.
- bena 4y ago
  "Wicked" doesn't mean bad, it means there are inherent difficulties in testing and implementation. The Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics is what it is. Both Hayek and Friedman both won it, even though they have very different ideas about how the economy should be run. As did Paul Krugman. Yet I've seen no one mention his Nobel prize when it comes time to criticize him. Even looking at what her study that won her the Nobel showed: "Banerjee, Duflo and their co-authors concluded that students appeared to learn nothing from additional days at school. Neither did spending on textbooks seem to boost learning, even though the schools in Kenya lacked many essential inputs. Moreover, in the Indian context Banerjee and Duflo intended to study, many children appeared to learn little: in results from field tests in the city of Vadodara fewer than one in five third-grade students could correctly answer first-grade curriculum math test questions." You can only get those results by implementing the solution. You can only know it doesn't work by trying it and seeing it doesn't work. That's part of what makes the problem wicked. And unlike one of the people who responded who wanted to use my statement as support for saying economics is not a "real science". What it really means, is that this shit is hard because it is incredibly hard to conduct experiments in ways that don't irreparably harm some group.
guerrilla 4y ago
Yeah, exactly, so it's not science at all and is of no value other than for what the OP said.

by bena 4y ago

The problem with economics is that every problem becomes a wicked problem. You just can't test your theories in a controlled manner. And everything has confounding factors.

ur-whale 4y ago

> The problem with economics is that every problem becomes a wicked problem. You just can't test your theories in a controlled manner. And everything has confounding factors. Or, to put it simply: economics is not a scientific discipline for any generally accepted definition of the term.

tomrod 4y ago

Esther Duflo won the Nobel prize for implementations of randomized controlled trials in a very non-wicked way. Experimental economics is a mature and active field.

bena 4y ago
"Wicked" doesn't mean bad, it means there are inherent difficulties in testing and implementation. The Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics is what it is. Both Hayek and Friedman both won it, even though they have very different ideas about how the economy should be run. As did Paul Krugman. Yet I've seen no one mention his Nobel prize when it comes time to criticize him. Even looking at what her study that won her the Nobel showed: "Banerjee, Duflo and their co-authors concluded that students appeared to learn nothing from additional days at school. Neither did spending on textbooks seem to boost learning, even though the schools in Kenya lacked many essential inputs. Moreover, in the Indian context Banerjee and Duflo intended to study, many children appeared to learn little: in results from field tests in the city of Vadodara fewer than one in five third-grade students could correctly answer first-grade curriculum math test questions." You can only get those results by implementing the solution. You can only know it doesn't work by trying it and seeing it doesn't work. That's part of what makes the problem wicked. And unlike one of the people who responded who wanted to use my statement as support for saying economics is not a "real science". What it really means, is that this shit is hard because it is incredibly hard to conduct experiments in ways that don't irreparably harm some group.

guerrilla 4y ago

Yeah, exactly, so it's not science at all and is of no value other than for what the OP said.