4 ms·

> 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 st

> 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.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      We have technologies that work, and we believe that quantum theory plays a part. We don't know that and we simply can't given that (a) its a theory and (b) it is untestable as I said earlier. How would you propose we could test quantum state and collapse to validate that the concept is actually correct?
_heimdall 1y ago
How can it be science if you can't follow the scientific method? It can be a field of study for sure and it can be useful too. My argument isn't that only scientific study is useful, I'm arguing that economics isn't scientific.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  Science doesn't require experimental designs, certainly they are incredibly helpful but they don't work for everything. Like (I grumble about this approach a lot) observational studies at a population level are certainly science, even though there's no experiments. Granted, in medicine at least they end up feeding into RCTs and controlled studies which is good, but in a lot of cases (child development is a big one) lots of hypotheses can't ethically be tested using experimental designs. We can't get sets of identical twins and raise one in a rich home and another in a poor home, holding everything else constant. Does this mean twin studies aren't science? I actually kinda agree that a lot of economics is very poor science (far too much maths on far too little data) but that's reflective of the difficulty of collecting such data rather than an indictment of the approach.

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.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    We have technologies that work, and we believe that quantum theory plays a part. We don't know that and we simply can't given that (a) its a theory and (b) it is untestable as I said earlier. How would you propose we could test quantum state and collapse to validate that the concept is actually correct?

_heimdall 1y ago

How can it be science if you can't follow the scientific method? It can be a field of study for sure and it can be useful too. My argument isn't that only scientific study is useful, I'm arguing that economics isn't scientific.

disgruntledphd2 1y ago
Science doesn't require experimental designs, certainly they are incredibly helpful but they don't work for everything. Like (I grumble about this approach a lot) observational studies at a population level are certainly science, even though there's no experiments. Granted, in medicine at least they end up feeding into RCTs and controlled studies which is good, but in a lot of cases (child development is a big one) lots of hypotheses can't ethically be tested using experimental designs. We can't get sets of identical twins and raise one in a rich home and another in a poor home, holding everything else constant. Does this mean twin studies aren't science? I actually kinda agree that a lot of economics is very poor science (far too much maths on far too little data) but that's reflective of the difficulty of collecting such data rather than an indictment of the approach.