/sci/ - Science & Math

No, because it's not a science at all.

>>9437052
what is it

Hello there. I see you are another degenerate dark market mushroom consumer. We are few and far in between.

>>9437055
applied math using incorrect axioms to give credibility to modern power structures

the entire field is a fraud

>>9437071
No I don't so drugs. I do hold a lot of XMR though.


>>9437083
I told my GF that economics was a meme and she didn't believe me. I expected more from an ME major.

>>9437100
>Monerofag
>obvious scamcoin
>>>/biz/

>>9437083
well said

>>9437083
what is socialist economics then?

>>9437165
>socialist economics
>economics
I think you just answered your own question.

It is a branch of applied math that is used to study the production and distribution of resources throughout the world

As someone who studies it, I can tell you that it has been leaving behind its legacy as a branch of political philosophy for several decades and has been transitioning into something much less politicized and much more technical, but for many complex reasons, the public isn't aware of that. People like >>9437083 are either ignorant or shitposting

>>9437272
He's just an antifa fag. Best ignore him

>>9437046
If economics is a science so is sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.
Hint: they're not

>>9437046
It's way, way worse than sociology or psychology in my book.
In the two above you can at least conduct scientific experiments to prove/disprove your theories. In economy it's next to impossible.

>>9437046
The scientific subset of economics is simply statistics but they have invented new terms for everything. Standard deviation renamed to volatility, variance to risk, etc.

>>9437272
>I assure you, mild mannered peasants, that our models are perfectly valid. After decades of study we have found it turns out that, mathematically, an economy functions best in the manner which also happens to maximize my profits and political power.

>>9437430
>The scientific subset of economics
That's just the empty set.

yes

>>9437052
this
you cannot call something not replicable a science, economy is inherently random and unpredictable

>>9437123
>he didnt read the white paper

>>9437727
>implying all science isn't more or less manipulated to do that

come on now anon

What do you even learn about in economics that isn't common sense?

>>9437763
The principle of comparative advantage, I guess. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

*Economics in One Lesson* explains a lot of common economic fallacies people commit.

>>9437749
Less. Reproducibility and consensus. Fraud results in getting thrown out of the academic arena.

>>9437763
>>9437777
See also Bastiat's "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen". A brilliant essay.

>>9437778
I'm not disagreeing, but research that has to do with military and political interests is the best funded there is and there is traditionally strong bias that validates the political status quo, see research on drugs for example.

>>9437777
>>9437782

Thanks, but I have a life, do you mind giving a tl;dr?

crypto isn't a fucking science is a russian roulette

>>9437794
dude, you're on 4chan and you don't even want to read a single essay? is this the attention span of our generation?

kids these days

>>9437272

Anyone knows you can make a model and "arguments" for any policy or the absolute opposite policy

Economics its PR with maths

>>9437794
>I have a life
>4chan
Pick one

>>9437794
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>>9437799

Yeah, I don't have the attention span to read and dissect an essay of what it's saying. There is a reason I'm not going to school for economics, because it's so dull and boring to read.

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>>9437777
wtf i wanted to read that

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>>9437046
>Is economics a pseudoscience?

Keynesian economics is a pseudo-science.

It isn't a science at all, it's litterally household management.

>>9437083
>this is coming from someone who probably thinks Marxism is a science.

>>9437046
It's a social science. It's a positive disciple, but it doesn't use controlled experiments.

>>9437727
define best, kike

economists dont use the scientific method

>>9437802
That goes for any field. Shit models don't gather consensus and are left to loonies

>>9437046
No, it is just a soft science
But some economic schools of thought indeed follow pseudoscientific methods

>>9437046
>people who study economics say it's just applied math and statistics
>people who don't study economics think it's politics and psychology (that tries to use the scientific model for some unknown reason?)

At this point we don't even care if you don't believe us, just leave us alone if you're not interested in hearing what practical economics is actually like. We've had these threads over and over and it's getting a little old

If you do think it is a pseudoscience/"social science", why don't econ grads get paid the same as political science, sociology, or psychology grads, though? I'd like to hear what you think, if you're so sure you guys understand what the field is about and what we do

>>9438411
>just applied math and statistics

Nah that sounds like bollocks.

>>9438411
>the scientific model
No such thing.

>>9438425
Who are you trying to convince? The person who is educated in both math/econ and works in it, or yourself?

I'd like to hear your new definition, then. If you'd be so kind as to share your expertise on this subject that I have no doubt you're an expert on

>>9438486
I don't but surely there is more to it than just some use of math and statistics.

>>9437046
Thank you anon for this cutie private fungible untraceable Monero waifu

>>9438472
le science meme

>>9437165
>what is socialist economics then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

>>9438490
It's optimization with context. The study of allocating finite resources in order to maximize something like profit or output. It's crunching numbers to make decisions in scenarios that often involve a lot of data that needs some level of interpreting. I have a math degree and I'm not going to claim practical economics work is extremely rigorous or groundbreaking math, but it is math at its core, no doubt. Someone working in the "economics" field doesn't sit around and write about what they think governments should do about taxes or minimum wage or whatever you guys think they do. They sit at a computer screen and work numbers so that companies know what to produce, what to pay, what to charge, and what it's going to take to make all that work. The dirty work for big operations with high stakes. There's no fucking scientific method involved. No divination and spell-casting. None of the pop-econ stuff you get in podcasts and highschool. It's a toolset for using math and stats in the real world. It's straightforward. It's useful, practical mathematics that requires some background in understanding certain (sometimes complicated) contexts for limited data. Usually a tad of finance and accounting here and there for the same reasons, etc

It's not that bizarre, really. Can't for the life of me figure out why this is so hard for people to get, and why people think it's political science part II or something. Why would a company hire someone like that? You think anyone out there is asking for more people educated in some sort of behavioral psychology?

>>9438553
>You think anyone out there is asking for more people educated in some sort of behavioral psychology?
we know they are
see, because you're a mathematician at your core, you've become a serious economist. you don't know (or pretend they don't exist?) about the shitty popsci version

>>9438561
Anon, I promise you they practically do not. A handful of behavioral, macro, and policy "economists" exist in the dark, wet corners of old university basements, but the average person walking out of school with a degree in economics is typically equipped with just basic understanding in finance, stats software, econometrics, and applied math. Not the hand-wavey bullshit that potential employers specifically do not need or want. I'm not trying to play it up as some sort of crazy rigorous data-science tier STEM degree, just pointing out that you guys think your average-joe econ student is studying something way more outlandish than he actually is. It's way closer to an education in finance, accounting, or something like management information than sociology or political science (even though, again, it is undeniably much more math-heavy than all of those, since that's just the niche it fills). Nasty "econ" has been done before and is still out there, but acting like that's what economics is defined by? It's like thinking mathematics is the study of calculating equations. Just flat-out misunderstanding the goal of, really, the bulk of the field at that point, you know?

>>9438612
so you be tellin me we wuz kangz n shiet?

>>9437165
A fraud as well. Marx wrote capital as a critique of political economy (and by extension economics), so anyone who claims to be a "Marxian Economist"or whatever has missed the mark entirely

>>9438630
>I just discovered the kangz meme and just need to post it somewhere

>>9437083
Well, not entirely. It can shed light on social mechanisms. However often economic models are manipulated to suit an argument or forecast or balance sheet. And almost always the models and variables are woefully incomplete.

>>9437165
social economics aren't economics, but a critique of economics as an unscientific field based on incorrect axioms as anon stated above. the proper term for marx's analysis of economics is political economy, since he uncovers in a scientific way (yes, a scientific way, read him if you don't believe me) the relationships and laws that gave rise to the current power sctructures and economic models

>>9438612
But how good are those models really? Why not just study statistics instead?

>>9438078
>critique of the science of marxism from a popperfag animeposter

doesn't get better

>>9438674
>incorrect axioms
No such things.

>>9438038
Really? It's based on the quantity of money theory. You are honestly telling me that it's a pseudoscience? Have you even read The General Theory? Where do you stand on the national subsistence fund? Does it raise or lower the interest rate if it's higher or lower respectively, or the inverse? That seems to be where Austrian economics and Keynes essentially differ.

>>9437778


'Science by consensus' is literally the opposite of science.

With the exception of behavioral economics (which really triggers conservatards), yes.

>>9438674
>incorrect axioms
give proof that they're incorrect

>>9438676
They're not models in the way you're thinking. Most of it is fairly intuitive cost-benefit calculation, be it for determining what can be produced at x expense for y time under a set of other constraints, or something like "at what point can x be priced at so that our expenses balance out the best given our resources and production costs". You know, no huge leaps in logic for the most part

It's not bold modeling of some big, ambiguous system, right. It's almost exclusively a set of problems surrounding the inner-workings of an operation which can fairly accurately produce a bunch of 'data' on its expenditures, incomes, and market

>Why not just study statistics instead?
Statistics is concerned with handling, typically, way bigger data for way different reasons. Statistics, at least from the four semesters of it that I got, is focused mainly on probabilities, inferences taken from huge amounts of information, and forecasting (which does show up in practical econ a lot too, so to answer that part, I guess we sort of do?)

Economists do have familiarity with statistics on a basic level, just not at the hardcore statistics level, which, as I've experienced it, is just designed for doing different things with different data. More of a data scientist's or actuary's sort of niche, that's all

>>9438707
>he thinks I was defining science here
>he thinks consensus isn't a vital part of what science actually is
Fuck off postmodernist scum.

>>9438681
example of the scientific method being applied in 'marxism'

>>9438717


'Reality by consensus' is a post-modern concept, post-modernist.

>>9438553
accounting is a science

>>9438729
kek

>>9438683
bourgeoisie economics takes private property as an a priori law of society and is build around justifying it and maximizing it for those that have it

>>9438714
the fact that alternative modes of production have already existed historically? i cannot possibly reproduce 3 volumes of scientific work in a 4chan post, that's clearly an absurd request

>>9438718
example of a virgin weab talking about something he doesn't understand

>build legitimate field of applied mathematics for dealing with production under constraints
>polishits hijack the layman's understanding of it to push their unbacked bullshit ideologies
>public ends up believing your subset of math is some sort of scam-tier pseudoscience designed to study taxes, money and wall street

JUST

>>9438736
bullshit, wasn't science to begin with

>>9438726
That's because they have no other criteria. The clue was in "part of".

>>9437046
if you go to a school that gives out BSc is economics, then you're training to be a politician - or a toady of one, no matter what you're taking.

>>9438738
>economics was never a science, it's just math
>bullshit, dude it was never a science at all

Watching people grapple with the "economics is not trying to be a science" thing is the most incredible experience, I swear
Incredible

>>9438735
>the fact that alternative modes of production have already existed historically?
And this is proof that which axioms are false?

>>9438748
the axiom that private property is necessary for production and the function of society in general, something neoliberal economists assume a priori

in case you're not familiar with the jargon on pol-sci, i mean private ownership of capital generating property and not your clothes and your toothbrush

>>9438754
>axiom
read a book

>>9438756
>"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]"

private property being part of human nature and necessary for societal function is an axiom

>economics thread
>non-econ anons rush in, posting their political philosophies and attaching words like "axiom" and "science" to them

GET OOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTT
GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT
AYN RAND POSTERS GET OUT
BERNIE SANDERS KARL MARX RONALD REAGAN POSTERS GET OUUUUTTT

>>9438768
>econ autist is triggered that his bullshit apologia pseudoscience has been debunked since the 1800s

daddy should have bought you a real degree anon :(

This article is interesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2016/10/31/five-reasons-you-should-blame-economics/#525f1f11cccd

give me one economic theory that deals with non-renewable resources.

what a joke of a "science"

>>9438739


Yes it is a part, a cancerous part that is the primary vector through which social signal hacking may intrude, to induce scientists to organize around certain ideological schelling points for the sake of their careers. A part which may serve to *enforce* and *perpetuate* fashionable nonsense that may coincidentally have political ramifications, because by definition, once a bit of fashionable nonsense receives the high status anointment of orthodoxy by the consensus, any contradictory theory must naturally be bogus or flawed in some way, and hence never see the light again after passing through the doors of 'peer review'.

A very benign example of this comedy of errors would be the nearly 50 year crusade against animal fats that even still retains some momentum today, on account of an initial study funded by sugar industry giants that was then accepted by consensus, and hence, it's status virtually locked in place, impervious to anything reality might have to say about the matter, for basically as long as those generation remained.

>>9437046
No, but it has become very dogmatic, even to be a social science.

>>9438778
i didn't believe id read something this sound on /sci/

is the quality of this board going up?

>>9438772
>proud to be talking out of his ass on a complicated subject he knows nothing about, mumbling something referencing his cult-like religious doctrine of an ideology

>>9438768
could have something to do with the fact that economics is not a science.

MODS should consider moving these threads to biz or x or something.

>>9438810
The issue is people who aren't educated in economics acting like they know what economics is. The "It's not a science" comments are the best demonstration of what I mean

Do you people do this with math and physics too? Just assume your expertise is on par with people who actually study the subject, despite them constantly telling you you're spouting irrelevant nonsense?

>>9438798
>he knows nothing about
>never actually read marx
>doesn't know his bullshit pseudoscience has been scientifically debunked
>doesn't understand what i wrote, registers it as "something"

hope daddy saved you a comfy position in his company.

>be undergrad student
>gonna do integrated masters on neurobiology
>course offers some serious optional courses
>there's also a choice of taking an optional course from another department
>choose econ cause i know it's gonna be laughable, easy perfect 10 compared to nanobiology for example
>some shitty business class
>professor talking to us as if he's teaching real science in orientation class
>students from my faculty and the chem faculty studying other shit while he talks
>econ retards looking at him like god

>fast forward
>big presentation day
>easy 10 for everyone from my faculty
>econ retards get 6s and 7s
>they don't even know how to properly use their own shitty jargon
>these are the "economists" of the future

>>9438823
but the way econ is taught in the neoliberal system isn't scientific, but rather serves as apologia for the current economic model. this has been scientifically proven 200 years ago, but of course you haven't read said scientific works. bourgeoisie economics uses scientific tools like applied math, but it's not a science because it makes the a priori assumption that private property is necessary.

your attitude is like a nazi-era biologist classifying aryan genetics as a science and insisting it's a science because he's certified in that field by the body of authority that benefits from aryan genetics being labeled a science

>>9438778
A healthy tip. Without consensus, there's no reality. The rest of your inane ramblings doesn't change the fact that consensus is a vital part of science.

I never said it didn't come with risks, but most of that risk is mitigated by other vital parts of science such as trying to falsify hypotheses based on observations, discovering new facts which change previous either drastically or incrementally previous know facts, reproducing results, etc.

Science is a continual process by which we acquire new knowledge which is verifiable. It's self-correcting by design. Regardless of whatever bias might be introduced into the research, the facts speak for themselves.

>>9438826
>never actually read marx
Karl Marx isn't economics you absolute imbecile. It's political philosophy. You have exactly no clue what economics is at all
>doesn't know his bullshit pseudoscience has been scientifically debunked
According to who, someone who actually studies economics or works in it professionally? I know a few of those myself, and unlike your sources, none of them are political propaganda peddlers, just people who are actually educated in the topic at hand. Weird how there's a disagreement there, huh? I'm sure the entire field of experts is wrong, and there's absolutely no misunderstanding on your side of things
>admitting to taking literally only econ 101
True expert in the topic here. Have fun being unemployed and dirt poor with a "neurobiology" degree, by the way, Dr. Med-school dropout

>>9438838
>I took an intro to economics course and nothing else: the post
>Nazi bigot neoliberal bourgeoisie apologist!! What do you mean my views are political ideology and not actual understanding of anything?

>>9438826
>judging a field by its undergrad option classes
How did a brainlet like you get on track to studying brains?

>>9438826
>take 1 credit hour neuro sci seminar course freshman year
>everything is easy and I get a good grade

Literally knew all this stuff anyway. Bullshit field. and to think you people believe this is profound? You fucking idiot lol. It's all basic common sense, how is there even a masters option for this kind of thing? Man brainlets blow me away every single day

>>9438849
>Karl Marx isn't economics you absolute imbecile. It's political philosophy

karl marx is political economy you utter imbecile, read das kapital

>According to who, someone who actually studies economics or works in it professionally? I know a few of those myself, and unlike your sources, none of them are political propaganda peddlers, just people who are actually educated in the topic at hand. Weird how there's a disagreement there, huh? I'm sure the entire field of experts is wrong, and there's absolutely no misunderstanding on your side of things

according to anyone who has actually studied the scientific works of marx.

>true expert in the topic here. Have fun being unemployed and dirt poor with a "neurobiology" degree, by the way, Dr. Med-school dropout

that's what you got out of that story? lmao

economics is literally neoliberal propaganda, if you read the dialectical critique of marx on the subject you'd understand this. your point of view is purely ideological, since the institution that educated you did so to perceive the current status quo as an unchangeable law of nature.

Answer me this, does bourgeoisie econ metaphysically accept private property as "human nature", yes or no? Does any modern econ school teach you about alternative modes of production truthfully, without ideological bias? You call yourself an economist cause daddy bought you some shitty degree, yet you probably haven't even read Proudhon, let alone Marx

>>9438857
>>9438862
samefag more, your "science" is still a bunch of ideological apologia garbage since it doesn't study or interpret the laws behind anything honestly, but simply justifies the system and creates models with the a priori assumption that neoliberalism is the only viable model of production. not only it isn't (due to it's internal contradictions that i'm sure you're aware of mr. economist), but even attempting to say so makes you a laughable retard for anyone who has actually studied political econ

>>9437046
underwater basket weaving is a science

>>9438868
>takes simplified "neurosci" course for morons
>probably a psych or some other soft "science", since no one refers to it as neuroscience inside stem
>thinks he knows how the brain works

you can't be insecure enough to spew this type of bullshit

>>9438871
Holy shit this entire post. Are you in fucking highschool? What the actual fuck

All you did was blow meaningless political insults and insist they have something to do with my field. Is this some sort of alt-right troll operation? There's no way this is real. Fuck off, I don't want to believe it. I don't study politics you idiot. Not the same subject. You're in the wrong fucking thread

>politics literally rotting peoples' brains out of their head
Good project to study in "neurobiology" grad school

>>9438876
>mocks your story with an identical one clearly made to poke fun at the original comment
>lol u serious bro??? ure so dumb

>>9438881
>i don't understand what you're writing because my education is severely one-sided
>"wow i'm not talking about politics guy! what do politics have to do with economics?"

at this point i feel like i'm speaking to an actual mentally disabled child, because you're obviously uneducated on the topic. you should seriously read marx, i'll just end it at this

>>9438885
key difference being that the course i took was an actual non-optional 4th year course for them, not some 2 ects course for people outside the faculty. nice strawman though

>>9438886
Politics DON'T have anything to do with economics. Read the fucking thread, moron. You're a layperson with zero understanding of what the field is and look like an idiot trying to insist it is something else to someone who has studied it and works in it. It's not "two-sided", you're talking about something completely fucking different than what I am

>>9438847


>Without consensus, there's no reality.

You are a solipsist.


>Science is a continual process by which we acquire new knowledge which is verifiable.

Certainly.

The problem is that peer review is not science.


>It's self-correcting by design.

It is self *reinforcing* by design.


>the facts speak for themselves.

The facts demonstrably do not speak for themselves.

A career scientist must publish or die.

In order to publish, your paper must make it past peer review.

In order to get past peer review, your paper must be in accord with the prevailing consensus.

Such a system is a *closed loop*, which like other 'decision by consensus' based systems (such as popular governance), does not *require*, and rarely ever desires, interactions with broader realities Outside.

Consequently, such systems are so often liable to spontaneously organize around and enforce some rather *weird* ideas as time goes on.

>>9438891
>politics don't have anything to do with economics

you cannot be this retarded. you believe economics exist in a vacuum outside metarial reality and society? economics ARE politics you dense fuck, what you wrote is most likely the dumbest fucking thing i've read this month. bourgeoisie economics are APOLOGIA, justifying the current system as the only viable one. I cannot keep writing the same shit 50 times. It's like saying "eugenics are biology, they have nothing to do with politics!".

Jesus christ man your stupidity is actually making me sad. I'm sad somewhere a person as uneducated and dumb as you sits on a chair thinking he's on the right side of this argument.

>>9438899
>economics ARE politics

exactly

and political science is a science

>>9438899
>you cannot be this retarded. you believe mathematics exist in a vacuum outside metarial reality and society?
Yes. it does.

Now stop commenting on fields you do not understand whatsoever. God damn dude. Shit's not even hard to understand. You misunderstand what my field is. You don't know what its goal is. You don't know what problems it exists to solve or how.

But I'm sure you'd know better, right? Of course, I'm wrong. There's no way you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Just the entire field that's wrong, never yourself. Do you know how anti-vaxxers sound to doctors? try to imagine that for a second. Just admit you have a limited understanding of what you're blabbering about. Fuck.

>>9438910
>There's no way you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

double negative. english fail. credibility decrease

>>9438918
>There's no way you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about
>there is no chance you're just clueless
Sarcastically saying "you can't be wrong". No double negative there, you dense fucking idiot. Stop samefagging and leave this board until you're old enough to post here. By the way, nobody above the age of 18 cares this much about blind ideology. It's a dead giveaway

>>9438892
You are a solipsist and a sophist. If there's no consensus on reality then everything is relative and nothing is true by definition (the self is the only reality, which happens to be what solipsism means btw).

>>9438927
not the same anon

>thinks neoliberal apologia is science because it uses scientific tools

>calls other out about "blind ideology"

so uneducated

>>9438948
You are absolutely the same person, and it's painfully obvious. nobody talks like that except the one kid who keeps using "apologia" in every sentence he makes like it's a meaningful punchline

>>9438941
the meaning of life is kys

ITT: Retarded fucking gentiles who don't understand economics and are mad their theoretical phys ed degree won't get them $300k starting

Suck my dick, you faggots. If you queers knew the first fucking thing about economics maybe this entire site wouldn't be pants-on-head retarded with their views on policymaking

I hope Ben Bernanke cucks your dad

>>9437046
My psychiatrist assures me that it isn't

>>9438953
keep ridiculing yourself. you're essentially angry because you don't even have the vocabulary to understand my arguments, it's truly astonishing how dumb you are

>>9438989
Everyone can right-click-inspect. just let it go, darling. It's an anonymous board. Just leave and accept that it's not worth spending your time on anymore

>>9438989
>>9439001

worthless posts you guys. totally retarded debate filled with big useless words

also,

art history is a science

>>9439001
>>9439023
>he thinks id go through all this trouble

your anger made my morning autismo. cheers

>>9438941


Man is not the measure of things. He is not a necessity. He was not always there, and he can always disappear as well. He may be replaced by others too.

A being can be better or worse at grasping Being, but it is *indeed* something one can be better or worse at.

Their sentiments are a part of Being too in a manner of fashion, such as if china were to decide to break off a chunk of the moon for their space base, that would certainly influence how one calculates the trajectory of lunar orbit. Of course on an even higher level, the dynamics of how those sentiments come about are themselves not without cause either. Certainly, any *comprehensive* theory of how to calculate the moons future states in space should be able to account for the likelihood of a cadre of ape creatures throwing it out of whack, too.

>>9439026


If you were to poll people what restaurants they had eaten at in the past month, you would have data.

If you were to poll them on what their favorite restaurant is, you would certainly have a very different sort of data, that would require much different interpretations, and be applied to different uses, but still something of relatively similar kind.

If you were to ask people what they think the *best* restaurant is though, now were talking something categorically different.

As a general rule, the more people you involve in a decision making process (not in the broad sense of 'everyone on a team', as in *executive* decision making), the more adulterated the output will be. Or to put a spin on the classic riff: "none of us are as stupid as all of us".

A being can be better or worse at grasping Being. Usually worse. Evolution is not always by necessity a process of optimization after all, and the invention of civilization itself comprehensively changes the selection filters. Adding more onions to the mix so often means you're just adding more noise to a signal.

Which isn't even the biggest issue though, which is that *the mechanism itself*, of decision by consensus, *incentivises* hacking the process with less than felicitous signals for fun and profit.

>>9439026
>>9439028


Basically what im saying anon is accept jesus christ as your lord and savior.

>>9438754
>the axiom that private property is necessary for production and the function of society in general
That's not an axiom of economics

>>9437272
>>9438392

As someone who studies it, there is one side of Economics that is serious and empirical and mathematical rigorous.

There is also another side of Economics that is influenced, not by corruption, but simply by funding and economics (pun not intended). Best example is financial economics, where banks/funds are buying up chairs that support research that reaffirm economic schools of thought that benefit them. Whereas financial economics at least tends to stay in its own corner in finance and ends up being just banks/investors/traders moving money amongst themselves, macroeconomics, which suffers from the same problem, has far wider implications on people, and are also seemingly (but not actually) more accessible to the layman. So it gets dragged into politics whether it likes it or not, and many economists and fine with going for that ride.

>>9438754
>the axiom that private property is necessary
>something neoliberal economists assume a priori

>>9438681
>science of marxism
You probably meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience..

>>9437083
>the entire field is a fraud
Sure anon. Come back when you've rediscovered basic economics and trade theory after starving a few million people with your stupid policies.

>>9438838
>it's not a science because it makes the a priori assumption that private property is necessary.
Are you literally retarded?

>>9438899
>bourgeoisie economics are APOLOGIA
My fucking sides

>>9437046
A lot of very bad things have been done to our environment, and our life sustaining biosphere according to economic doctrine.

>>9439109
yes

>>9437046
De-growth is humanity's only hope for long term survival.

>>9438548
Junk thread aside, this was pretty good. I gift you 2 internets anon.

>>9438826
What is "shit that never happened"? I'll take moar greentext for 500.

>>9438899
>APOLOGIA
>APOLOGIA
>APOLOGIA
>APOLOGIA
>APOLOGIA
>APOLOGIA

>>9439120
We'll just call the environment an externality. Problem solved.

>>9438892
>In order to get past peer review, your paper must be in accord with the prevailing consensus.

And every paper passed by peer review is another brick in the wall of consensus. '92% of studies find...'

How many times have you heard something like "there's no way so many could be wrong right?" But you know, its not actually 'so many'.

>>9438754
>the axiom that private property
What the fucking fuck? Go read a logic book you fucking retard.

>>9440784
he's right, anon, he isn't using it in the mathematical sense

>>9438759
It makes no sense to take an empirical claim as an axiom.

>>9438674
>yes, a scientific way, read him if you don't believe me

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhethinks"dialeticalmaterialism"isscientificHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

>>9440872
except he isn't, his definition isn't even auto evident.

>>9439085
As someone who got a degree out of this farse, yes, I agree with this.

Also, they forgot the whole social aspect of what is essentially a social activity.

>>9437100
>gf
>if 3D and not 2D than
>>>/f/acebook

>>9438754
you don't know what an axiom is
neoclassicals claim that scarce resources exist and that individuals maximise their utility, and that they demonstrate multiple constant consistent actions (axioms) in all of their behaviour
individuals acquire (homestead) and protect their property and punish those who impose costs on their property, that's just an observable fact of human behaviour and humans demonstrate it in everything they do
for conflict not to occur continuously rights have to be granted over property so that they can be respected and people can cooperate

>>9437165
gay

>>9437055
>>9437083

It's literaly a soft science by definition, it employs math to develop rules but there are very few solid rules and studies rely more on peer reviews and historical analysis than they do lab experiments.

I think I want to be an economics major now

>>9442185
A house isn't a factory, you're comparing apples with baseballs

>>9442165
It's not really forgotten but it's terribly unsexy and gets no Finance-level funding

>>9437165
Fake and gay

Austrian economists are the only honest economists, and no, it's not science.

>>9438707
Which is why modern science is a joke and a slave to large corporations, apart from the most pure fundamental science with no third party interest.

>>9444146
I think it will be hilarious what happens to machine learning after all the dust clears from the Big Tech money

>>9437727
If someone manages to exploit it in order to maximize profits then that implies that it works

>>9438411
>mfw econ grads from my university have the second highest average starting salary


Going to grad school pretty much immediately so I can start at $20k higher, but ~$60k fresh out of college isn't too shabby IMO.

>>9443832
Shit's cash yo.

>>9445458
>$60k starting

Any finance role should be $80k starting

Any GOOD finance role should be >$100k starting

>>9445496
Yeah that's just the average, some people go become teachers, fucked up their GPA, or are too autistic to interview decently which brings it down a bit.

A ton of econ grads get recruited by IB's from my uni and start at the numbers you posted, they usually know how to program and can actually talk to people without REEEEEing out.

I'm mainly going to grad school(MS in statistics) because I want to jump in on the data science meme which requires you to have a masters or Ph.d. I have considered being a quant at an IB though, seems like a solid job.

>>9445537
*masters or Ph.d in some STEM related field, just to be clear

>>9445537
I first fell for the Econ meme. Thank goodness I also majored in math.

Then I did quant finance for 2 years. It was chill and the money was good, but really boring after a while if you're not into it.

Now I'm falling for the data science / deep learning meme and doing a masters. Can't wait to see for what meme I fall for next.

>>9445553
Yeah quant finance seems comfy, but I can see how it might get boring. I'm a non-traditional student, but I did IT for a small accounting firm and worked my way up to staff accountant without even having a degree.

Money was decent, but public accounting is the suck, all you do is 7-8th grade math and deal with fuckwit clients. I automated half my job and just got super bored.

>>9438899
As a STEM guy (an actual field, not your shitty degree), I must admit that I’d rather be an economist than a “neurobiologist” (Starbucks guy)