3 ms·

> Economics is not a science. It is more like history, a set of useful methods but nonetheless highly colored by the current political mood. > Crucially, econ

> Economics is not a science. It is more like history, a set of useful methods but nonetheless highly colored by the current political mood. > Crucially, economics also lacks the basic accountability mechanism that real sciences have: data. Bad theories in biology or physics disappear when new data repudiates them, but bad theories in economics never go away. Lost me there. This is just sensationalist.

77pt77 2y ago
The interesting part is: > Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA
llimllib 2y ago
Peace, famously, is easy to judge objectively; that's why it gets a nobel
- 77pt77 2y ago
  Kissinger still got it without peace in Vietnam.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Obama got it for winning an election while being half-white...
    - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
      Actually Obama got ot for closing Guantanamo, bringing peace to Middle East and withdrawing from Afghanistan. Or for the hope that he would do any of that, can't remember exactly right now..
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
7thaccount 2y ago
It is sensationalist, but there is a small kernel of truth. Economists have major physics envy and want desperately to be a full mathematically based science, but it's more of a social science (as in not hard science). Doing regression models on the economy is obviously somewhat flawed. There is an experimental branch of economics that does repeatable experiments though, so some practicioners are probably pretty close. There are a lot of things economists almost universally agree on (e.g. price caps bad), but there are big differences in schools of thought. Politicians can choose a la carte and can find an economist to agree with them on practically any policy.
- feyman_r 2y ago
  As far as I understand, economics is a part of Social Science, not just resembling it. I don't think it can contend with the other two branches [1] per se - Formal and Natural, whose basis is different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
- 77pt77 2y ago
  > Economists have major physics envy All the rigor of pure mathematics, none of the predictive power of Physics.
  - ahazred8ta 2y ago
    The sciences, ranked: https://xkcd.com/435/#math-purity https://xkcd.com/435/#math-purity
coliveira 2y ago
Economics uses data, but unlike other sciences it is not falsifiable. If an economist makes a prediction that is incorrect, nothing happens. Instead they will always attribute the error to some unexpected factor that couldn't be accounted for (the "black swan" doctrine).

77pt77 2y ago

The interesting part is: > Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA

llimllib 2y ago

Peace, famously, is easy to judge objectively; that's why it gets a nobel

77pt77 2y ago
Kissinger still got it without peace in Vietnam.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Obama got it for winning an election while being half-white...
  - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
    Actually Obama got ot for closing Guantanamo, bringing peace to Middle East and withdrawing from Afghanistan. Or for the hope that he would do any of that, can't remember exactly right now..

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

7thaccount 2y ago

It is sensationalist, but there is a small kernel of truth. Economists have major physics envy and want desperately to be a full mathematically based science, but it's more of a social science (as in not hard science). Doing regression models on the economy is obviously somewhat flawed. There is an experimental branch of economics that does repeatable experiments though, so some practicioners are probably pretty close. There are a lot of things economists almost universally agree on (e.g. price caps bad), but there are big differences in schools of thought. Politicians can choose a la carte and can find an economist to agree with them on practically any policy.

feyman_r 2y ago
As far as I understand, economics is a part of Social Science, not just resembling it. I don't think it can contend with the other two branches [1] per se - Formal and Natural, whose basis is different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
77pt77 2y ago
> Economists have major physics envy All the rigor of pure mathematics, none of the predictive power of Physics.
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  The sciences, ranked: https://xkcd.com/435/#math-purity https://xkcd.com/435/#math-purity

coliveira 2y ago

Economics uses data, but unlike other sciences it is not falsifiable. If an economist makes a prediction that is incorrect, nothing happens. Instead they will always attribute the error to some unexpected factor that couldn't be accounted for (the "black swan" doctrine).