3 ms·

I've started to think about this too. Economics isnt a science, its an orthodoxy of rules and beliefs. Sure there are some correlations that hit true, but out

I've started to think about this too. Economics isnt a science, its an orthodoxy of rules and beliefs. Sure there are some correlations that hit true, but outside a few true-isms, its basically a religion.

toyg 3y ago
Economics is a science, but a social one. That means that, as much as they try to stuff it with math, economics remains fundamentally an application of loose sociologic principles, which are themselves extremely debatable. The genius is that that bit of casual math instantly insulate economists from their peers (i.e. historians, sociologists, etc), no matter how bogus such math might be.
- bandrami 3y ago
  The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". I've even seen people sneer "mere heuristics" at suggestions to try that...
  - addcommitpush 3y ago
    It's quite surprising because ever since the "credibility revolution" [0], a major critique of economics is that it focuses too much on issues that are well suited to "validating via observation" as you call it, rather than issues that are actually important. For instance, more looking at the effect of soccer victories on inter-ethnic trust [1], fewer grand theories of development. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution [1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
  - SantalBlush 3y ago
    >seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". The economic literature abounds in observational studies that test economic theories. What are you basing your statement on?
- Aerroon 3y ago
  It's a question of predictive value. Economics definitely has predictive value. Eg supply and demand, the emergence of money, price elasticity etc. Economies in video games fascinate me, because it's another 'world' where you can see whether some economics principles apply or not. Eg the game Path of Exile doesn't have 'money', but various crafting materials ended up being treated as money by the players. The exchange rates between them are set by supply and demand as well.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The problem is economists pretend they are a hard science, while their founding works are largely just assertions from randos in the 1600s. There's no scientific basis for any of it, and plenty of economics still stand on the stilts of things like "rational actors" and other handwaves that they use to pretend their terrible toy models can represent reality. They also do things like define market efficiency in circular ways. Even game theory sits on top of the throne of "rational actors", meanwhile human beings are explicitly IRRATIONAL actors. If economics was a functional science, the richest people in the world would be economists. That it isn't is strong evidence that no economics yet has produced strong predictions, which is a rather significant problem for a "science".

toyg 3y ago

Economics is a science, but a social one. That means that, as much as they try to stuff it with math, economics remains fundamentally an application of loose sociologic principles, which are themselves extremely debatable. The genius is that that bit of casual math instantly insulate economists from their peers (i.e. historians, sociologists, etc), no matter how bogus such math might be.

bandrami 3y ago
The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". I've even seen people sneer "mere heuristics" at suggestions to try that...
- addcommitpush 3y ago
  It's quite surprising because ever since the "credibility revolution" [0], a major critique of economics is that it focuses too much on issues that are well suited to "validating via observation" as you call it, rather than issues that are actually important. For instance, more looking at the effect of soccer victories on inter-ethnic trust [1], fewer grand theories of development. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution [1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  >seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". The economic literature abounds in observational studies that test economic theories. What are you basing your statement on?
Aerroon 3y ago
It's a question of predictive value. Economics definitely has predictive value. Eg supply and demand, the emergence of money, price elasticity etc. Economies in video games fascinate me, because it's another 'world' where you can see whether some economics principles apply or not. Eg the game Path of Exile doesn't have 'money', but various crafting materials ended up being treated as money by the players. The exchange rates between them are set by supply and demand as well.
mrguyorama 3y ago
The problem is economists pretend they are a hard science, while their founding works are largely just assertions from randos in the 1600s. There's no scientific basis for any of it, and plenty of economics still stand on the stilts of things like "rational actors" and other handwaves that they use to pretend their terrible toy models can represent reality. They also do things like define market efficiency in circular ways. Even game theory sits on top of the throne of "rational actors", meanwhile human beings are explicitly IRRATIONAL actors. If economics was a functional science, the richest people in the world would be economists. That it isn't is strong evidence that no economics yet has produced strong predictions, which is a rather significant problem for a "science".