4 ms·

I've taken issue with economics being considered a science since my first econ class in high school. It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the pa

I've taken issue with economics being considered a science since my first econ class in high school. It can be very useful for quantifying and comparing the past, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes.

squid_ca 1y ago
Edit:replied to wrong post
braiamp 1y ago
> it can't reliably predict future outcomes. Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Practical economics is exclusively about controlling perception. The Fed, for example, may have modelling that indicates we have a downturn coming in 6 months. Those models aren't predictive though, and the Fed announces their economic outlook and what they may do with rates in the future they are only attempting to modify public perception and nudge behavior to make the future they actually want happen; it has nothing to do with predicting where the economy will be.
seunosewa 1y ago
Economics can be practised as a science or not, depending on the individual. Austrian economics, for example, is more of a religion while mainstream economics is more scientific. Economics is a science of human behaviour, which is not exact. Economic models are like weather models. They cannot be exact because what they are modelling (weather, human behaviour) is incredibly complicated with millions of parameters. Science is about observing something, forming a hypothesis about why it is that way, and then testing the hypothesis to determine whether it is correct. Many Economics researchers do all of the above, so they are scientists.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Totally agree that economists observe behavior and crest hypothesise, and model what might happen. That doesn't make it science though, especially when they can't really run any type of controlled studies that support the results and hypothesise claimed.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    > when they can't really run any type of controlled studies In that case, is geology a science? I too am sceptical about economics (mostly macro, the micro stuff is fine) but there are lots of places where you can't run experiments and some of them are science.
    - seunosewa 1y ago
      Evolutionary biology is another case where direct experiments don't work for the most part. Even in physics, Einstein's theories had to be supported by things like astronomical observations.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        This touches on another area I view as wholely unscientific - quantum physics. The most fundamental hypothesis of the field is untestable by design. We will never know if quantum state exists or if probability clouds collapse upon observation because by that very principle we will never know the state prior to observing it.
        krapp 1y ago
        We have technology that only works because quantum physics is a thing. Lasers, LEDs (particularly blue LEDs), GPS and MRIs and semiconductors are some examples. Computer chips are getting small enough that quantum tunneling is a real engineering concern. Quantum entanglement has been experimentally verified numerous times. Calling it "wholely unscientific" makes you seem like a crank.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 1y ago
> […] and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes. A physicists once remarked that his job would been much harder if particles had free will. But that is exact economists have to do: predict what humans will do. There is an entire sub-field of study on the non-rationality of people and how it feeds into how that effects money, finance, and economies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics But there have been instances of models working. When QE started a group of folks made predictions: > We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment. * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Another group of folks (often called "Keynesian") made different predictions based on their model(s) / understanding of how things work.. One turned out correct and other incorrect in their predictions. See also predictions about "tax cuts pay for themselves": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment The fact that people ignore the results of the experiments is not a failing of the academic field.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > But that is exact economists have to do: predict what humans will do Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen. That works in reverse as well, attempting to predict why humans did what they did in the past and then attempt to attribute those predictions as an explanation of quantified economic indicators. In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific?
  - throw0101c 1y ago
    > Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen. Economists study the economy which is made of… a bunch of humans doing stuff with money. > In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific? What is this not testable about: > The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation […] * https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/15/open-letter-to-ben-bernanke/ https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/15/open-letter-to-be... * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Was there (USD) currency debasement? Was there US inflation? No? The predictions were wrong. The same day it was published (in the WSJ) there were critiques about it, e.g.: * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/liquidationists-of-the-world-unite/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1... When QE2 went forward and was about to stop there were many predictions (generally involving piles of money), some of which were accurate and others less so: * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/stocks-flows-and-pimco-wonkish/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0... * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/the-decline-of-pimco-macro/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0... * https://equitablegrowth.org/pimco-lose-lots-money-influence-people-honest-broker-week-october-10-2014/ https://equitablegrowth.org/pimco-lose-lots-money-influence-... How are / were these "untestable"? People in finance make predictions about what policies will do and where they will take the economy on a daily basis: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Do you have a model that tries to explain what tariffs with do to the USD? You can make a prediction and win/lose a lot of money buy shorting/longing the dollar.
Workaccount2 1y ago
>there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes. I doubt you would agree that meteorology or chemistry are "nothing scientific" despite also meeting that criteria? Inability to predict outcomes does not mean "unscientific". It usually means it models a system with a fractal inputs and chaotic outputs.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Any study based entirely on modelling is unscientific in my opinion. Chemistry doesn't fall into that category as far as I understand, I don't know much about meteorological research.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    I don't know where you get that economics is based entirely on modelling. Economic decisions happen constantly on all levels, and their effects are studied heavily. The models follow from observation, the same as they do in chemistry or meteorology. And just like those two, the models are weak compared to actual observation.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      But you can't study the effects directly. Economic system are complex, any changes made are impossible to isolate and any changes in economic indicators have to be assumed to be related to the changes made. I argue that economic research is entirely based on modelling because the research results produced always depend on modelling and either don't include any type of control group or use a controlled study so small that the odds it accurately reflects the entire economy are low. The first I think is self explanatory, for the second I'd point to studies of UBI that are done on small populations within a larger economy that doesn't have a UBI. The results of the small group are effectively meaningless because that group has a comparative advantage against the rest of the economy, and those studies are never able to create a bubble in which the UBI population is entirely cut off from the real economy while still mimicking well enough all other systems, industries, and motivations of the real economy.
slowmovintarget 1y ago
Economics is a science in the sense that it is a field of study. Weather science couldn't, for a long time, accurately predict the weather, but study and model refinement progressed to the point where weather prediction is more reliable now than in the past. Economics is the science of human behavior at scale, and as such, does indeed have predictive power. It is not always reliable as there are dynamic conditions and incomplete data that make the models not always fit. That doesn't disqualify it from being a science (especially the data-oriented part of it). Economics practice falls on its face when you attempt to inject ideology, though.

squid_ca 1y ago

Edit:replied to wrong post

braiamp 1y ago

> it can't reliably predict future outcomes. Because we do not control perception. We have to presume multiple scenarios each of have a dimension of perception. Perception always become a determinant factor.

_heimdall 1y ago
Practical economics is exclusively about controlling perception. The Fed, for example, may have modelling that indicates we have a downturn coming in 6 months. Those models aren't predictive though, and the Fed announces their economic outlook and what they may do with rates in the future they are only attempting to modify public perception and nudge behavior to make the future they actually want happen; it has nothing to do with predicting where the economy will be.

seunosewa 1y ago

Economics can be practised as a science or not, depending on the individual. Austrian economics, for example, is more of a religion while mainstream economics is more scientific. Economics is a science of human behaviour, which is not exact. Economic models are like weather models. They cannot be exact because what they are modelling (weather, human behaviour) is incredibly complicated with millions of parameters. Science is about observing something, forming a hypothesis about why it is that way, and then testing the hypothesis to determine whether it is correct. Many Economics researchers do all of the above, so they are scientists.

_heimdall 1y ago
Totally agree that economists observe behavior and crest hypothesise, and model what might happen. That doesn't make it science though, especially when they can't really run any type of controlled studies that support the results and hypothesise claimed.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  > when they can't really run any type of controlled studies In that case, is geology a science? I too am sceptical about economics (mostly macro, the micro stuff is fine) but there are lots of places where you can't run experiments and some of them are science.
  - seunosewa 1y ago
    Evolutionary biology is another case where direct experiments don't work for the most part. Even in physics, Einstein's theories had to be supported by things like astronomical observations.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      This touches on another area I view as wholely unscientific - quantum physics. The most fundamental hypothesis of the field is untestable by design. We will never know if quantum state exists or if probability clouds collapse upon observation because by that very principle we will never know the state prior to observing it.
      - krapp 1y ago
        We have technology that only works because quantum physics is a thing. Lasers, LEDs (particularly blue LEDs), GPS and MRIs and semiconductors are some examples. Computer chips are getting small enough that quantum tunneling is a real engineering concern. Quantum entanglement has been experimentally verified numerous times. Calling it "wholely unscientific" makes you seem like a crank.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

throw0101c 1y ago

> […] and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes. A physicists once remarked that his job would been much harder if particles had free will. But that is exact economists have to do: predict what humans will do. There is an entire sub-field of study on the non-rationality of people and how it feeds into how that effects money, finance, and economies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics But there have been instances of models working. When QE started a group of folks made predictions: > We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment. * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Another group of folks (often called "Keynesian") made different predictions based on their model(s) / understanding of how things work.. One turned out correct and other incorrect in their predictions. See also predictions about "tax cuts pay for themselves": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment The fact that people ignore the results of the experiments is not a failing of the academic field.

_heimdall 1y ago
> But that is exact economists have to do: predict what humans will do Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen. That works in reverse as well, attempting to predict why humans did what they did in the past and then attempt to attribute those predictions as an explanation of quantified economic indicators. In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific?
- throw0101c 1y ago
  > Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen. Economists study the economy which is made of… a bunch of humans doing stuff with money. > In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific? What is this not testable about: > The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation […] * https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/15/open-letter-to-ben-bernanke/ https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/15/open-letter-to-be... * https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke Was there (USD) currency debasement? Was there US inflation? No? The predictions were wrong. The same day it was published (in the WSJ) there were critiques about it, e.g.: * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/liquidationists-of-the-world-unite/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1... When QE2 went forward and was about to stop there were many predictions (generally involving piles of money), some of which were accurate and others less so: * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/stocks-flows-and-pimco-wonkish/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0... * https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/the-decline-of-pimco-macro/ https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0... * https://equitablegrowth.org/pimco-lose-lots-money-influence-people-honest-broker-week-october-10-2014/ https://equitablegrowth.org/pimco-lose-lots-money-influence-... How are / were these "untestable"? People in finance make predictions about what policies will do and where they will take the economy on a daily basis: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Do you have a model that tries to explain what tariffs with do to the USD? You can make a prediction and win/lose a lot of money buy shorting/longing the dollar.

Workaccount2 1y ago

>there's absolutely nothing scientific about the process and no matter how much modelling is done it can't reliably predict future outcomes. I doubt you would agree that meteorology or chemistry are "nothing scientific" despite also meeting that criteria? Inability to predict outcomes does not mean "unscientific". It usually means it models a system with a fractal inputs and chaotic outputs.

_heimdall 1y ago
Any study based entirely on modelling is unscientific in my opinion. Chemistry doesn't fall into that category as far as I understand, I don't know much about meteorological research.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  I don't know where you get that economics is based entirely on modelling. Economic decisions happen constantly on all levels, and their effects are studied heavily. The models follow from observation, the same as they do in chemistry or meteorology. And just like those two, the models are weak compared to actual observation.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    But you can't study the effects directly. Economic system are complex, any changes made are impossible to isolate and any changes in economic indicators have to be assumed to be related to the changes made. I argue that economic research is entirely based on modelling because the research results produced always depend on modelling and either don't include any type of control group or use a controlled study so small that the odds it accurately reflects the entire economy are low. The first I think is self explanatory, for the second I'd point to studies of UBI that are done on small populations within a larger economy that doesn't have a UBI. The results of the small group are effectively meaningless because that group has a comparative advantage against the rest of the economy, and those studies are never able to create a bubble in which the UBI population is entirely cut off from the real economy while still mimicking well enough all other systems, industries, and motivations of the real economy.

slowmovintarget 1y ago

Economics is a science in the sense that it is a field of study. Weather science couldn't, for a long time, accurately predict the weather, but study and model refinement progressed to the point where weather prediction is more reliable now than in the past. Economics is the science of human behavior at scale, and as such, does indeed have predictive power. It is not always reliable as there are dynamic conditions and incomplete data that make the models not always fit. That doesn't disqualify it from being a science (especially the data-oriented part of it). Economics practice falls on its face when you attempt to inject ideology, though.