4 ms·
Granted, the merit of some of the awards is questionable, but I think e.g.: Nash's work on game theory or Kahneman/Tvservky's on the pyschology of judgment defi
by ckastner 3y ago
Granted, the merit of some of the awards is questionable, but I think e.g.: Nash's work on game theory or Kahneman/Tvservky's on the pyschology of judgment definitely fall under the umbrella of "science".
- oldgradstudent 3y agoThere are plenty of awards granted for great work in computer science, electrical engineering, or any number of other fields. It doesn't make them Nobel prizes. At least the ACM never attempted to hang on the coattails of the the Nobel Prize by naming the Turing award for Alfred Nobel.
- Hamuko 3y ago>At least the ACM never attempted to hang on the coattails of the the Nobel Prize by naming the Turing award for Alfred Nobel. Aren't they riding on the coattails of Turing instead?
- oldgradstudent 3y agoTuring wasn't nearly as well known as he is now. The cryptoanalysis of the Enigma remained classified until the early 1970s, long after the Turing award was established (the first award was given in 1966).
- VHRanger 3y agoArguably Goldin winning for pure empirical work falls under science just as much or more than the Khaneman prize
- mrguyorama 3y agoNo, a newly named award shouldn't really have any existing clout associated with it, and can make it's own reputation. The Turing award is not treated like a nobel prize by pretty much anyone, though it is respected. Economics decided that kind of thing, say a "Smith award" wouldn't get them enough clout, so better to abuse a brand name for it's value. How classic.
- VHRanger 3y agoIm sorry but to a normal person the Fields medal or Turing award is treated the exact same as the Nobel prize in whatever discipline.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAre you sure? How many normal people even know the Fields medal or Turing award even exists?
- aragonite 3y agoNote that neither of your two examples is carried out by people who think of themselves as economists.
- subtypefiddler 3y agoVery interesting examples. For Nash, Von Neumann contributions to the field were orders of magnitude more important. For Kahneman and Tversky let's not forget that the foundations are quite shaky to quote [0] [0] https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-perspective-on-thinking-fast-and-slow/ https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe...