4 ms·

I think you are mistaken only in assuming that economists don't know this. It's blatantly obvious as soon as you learn about the philosophy of science. The pro

I think you are mistaken only in assuming that economists don't know this. It's blatantly obvious as soon as you learn about the philosophy of science. The problem is that economic decisions still need to be made and "confidence" actually is a big factor in how markets react to news. Since you can't start doing science in economics at this point then you better look to your preferred economic philosophy for some pointers and rules of thumb. And you god damn better make sure people have confidence in you (since it literally makes things work better and because then you get less blame for mistakes). Since the creation of a fake Nobel prize in Economics to borrow some of that sweet sweet confidence people have in Physics and Chemistry it's been seen as an image problem. A branding problem. It's very Straussian I suppose, in that "the masses must be lied to for their own good, rulers need to show strength and project confidence" kind of way. It's definitely gotten out of hand in my opinion, so little effort going towards moving economics towards science and so much on religious arguments when all sides know they can't really model or predict anything.

cynicalkane 14y ago
The opinion that the Nobel Prize in Economics is a "fake" prize is not shared by the Nobel Foundation, which treats it as equal to Nobel's prizes and awards them in the same way, with the same people, by the same criteria as the other science prizes. They differ only in name as they were named after different benefactors. I wish people would stop saying this. On the other hand, it's a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/
- fergtrhhty 14y ago
  You are either completely ignorant about what you are writing about or a liar. The prize is NEVER mentioned as a Nobel prize. The diplomas don't mention Nobel prize anywhere. As an irrefutable proof I submit this: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/nomination/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/nomination/ "The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize" Please, go spread your misinformation anywhere else.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  True, using "fake" was just to be pejorative. It is not one of the original Nobel prizes, it doesn't fit the original prize philosophy of Alfred Nobel but it is the only non-Nobel prize that is officially associated with the Nobel Foundation. The same people (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) also award the Crafoord Prize as well as others, but only the Economics one put "Nobel" in the name and the fact that this was done to improve the image of Economics is just history. I don't think you're being accurate to say they differ "only in name". There is plenty of controversy about the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel being called "The Nobel Prize in Economics". The Nobel family doesn't like their name being attached to it since it wasn't Alfred Nobel that created it. Hayek was given the prize and stated that he, if he had been asked, would have advised against it because "the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally". I like that quote because it nicely encapsulates the difference in the fields of hard science and economics and the different effects of this kind of prize.
Joeri 14y ago
Just like you can reliably model a gas but not its particles, i think you can reliably model a crowd but not its individuals. To me economics is the science of predicting the interactions of crowds.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  It aspires to be and everyone certainly hopes it will be, the behavioural economics crowd thinks they are headed towards that certainly. Their argument that the reason for the lack of predictive power in economics is the reliance on models that assume individuals are rational actors seems to have a lot of merit. At the moment the techniques available and the predictive power puts it far down the spectruum that has the hard sciences on one side and pseudoscience on the other with the soft/social sciences in the middle.

cynicalkane 14y ago

The opinion that the Nobel Prize in Economics is a "fake" prize is not shared by the Nobel Foundation, which treats it as equal to Nobel's prizes and awards them in the same way, with the same people, by the same criteria as the other science prizes. They differ only in name as they were named after different benefactors. I wish people would stop saying this. On the other hand, it's a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/

fergtrhhty 14y ago
You are either completely ignorant about what you are writing about or a liar. The prize is NEVER mentioned as a Nobel prize. The diplomas don't mention Nobel prize anywhere. As an irrefutable proof I submit this: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/nomination/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/nomination/ "The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize" Please, go spread your misinformation anywhere else.
freshhawk 14y ago
True, using "fake" was just to be pejorative. It is not one of the original Nobel prizes, it doesn't fit the original prize philosophy of Alfred Nobel but it is the only non-Nobel prize that is officially associated with the Nobel Foundation. The same people (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) also award the Crafoord Prize as well as others, but only the Economics one put "Nobel" in the name and the fact that this was done to improve the image of Economics is just history. I don't think you're being accurate to say they differ "only in name". There is plenty of controversy about the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel being called "The Nobel Prize in Economics". The Nobel family doesn't like their name being attached to it since it wasn't Alfred Nobel that created it. Hayek was given the prize and stated that he, if he had been asked, would have advised against it because "the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally". I like that quote because it nicely encapsulates the difference in the fields of hard science and economics and the different effects of this kind of prize.

Joeri 14y ago

Just like you can reliably model a gas but not its particles, i think you can reliably model a crowd but not its individuals. To me economics is the science of predicting the interactions of crowds.

freshhawk 14y ago
It aspires to be and everyone certainly hopes it will be, the behavioural economics crowd thinks they are headed towards that certainly. Their argument that the reason for the lack of predictive power in economics is the reliance on models that assume individuals are rational actors seems to have a lot of merit. At the moment the techniques available and the predictive power puts it far down the spectruum that has the hard sciences on one side and pseudoscience on the other with the soft/social sciences in the middle.