/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10055307]

Why is Economics the most redpilled science?

[Anonymous No.10055324]

Is marx redpilled in your book?

[Anonymous No.10055362]

>>10055307
>Economics
>Science

They claim to be the "queen" of social sciences while everything they measure is measured better by other social sciences and they have little to no utility for "hard" sciences.

[Anonymous No.10055368]

>>10055307
Economic "science"
>can't even agree on a single system of economics, let alone the specific policies to use for a system
Social "science"
>relies entirely on psychology, who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about
Psychological "science"
>has no idea what the fuck they're talking about, relies more of feelings than objective measurements
Medical "science"
>convinces you they know what's best for your health, proceeds to allow you to cut your dick/breasts off because your mind is fucked up

[Anonymous No.10055389]

/thread

[Anonymous No.10055446]

>>10055307
>Why is Economics the most redpilled science?
You can't be a redpilled science if you're not even a science. Economists do not use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10055876]

>>10055368
>can't even agree on a single system of economics, let alone the specific policies to use for a system
Wrong. You live too much on 4chan. The conspiracy theories here are not an accurate representation of the field.
>relies entirely on psychology, who has no idea what the fuck they're talking about
Wrong. It is primarily based on cognitive behavioral psychology (CBT), of which is statistically backed. And generally "administered" through working with the patient, and over time letting them discover and resolve what is troubling them.
>has no idea what the fuck they're talking about, relies more of feelings than objective measurements
see above.
>convinces you they know what's best for your health, proceeds to allow you to cut your dick/breasts off because your mind is fucked up
Wrong. It's based off of a hierarchy of different styles of studies, the gold standard of which is the double-blind study. The least effective (but might lead to further research) is studies done via animals with similar physiology to humans.

Overall your understanding of science (or lack thereof) leads me to believe you're the type to think the world is flat, holistic medicine has merit, the anti-vaccine people have something interesting to say, and "alternative" social planning is taken seriously.
In other words, go to school and actually learn something for once.

[Anonymous No.10055884]

>>10055876
economics isn’t a science, they perform no experiments and make innacurate predictions constantly, their ideas about equilibriums are insane and the notion of supply and demand has no physical correlates. CBT is not proven to have any long term benefits to most patients and is based on a flawed theory of mind. Medical science churns out harmful surgeries and prescription drugs near constantly along with fucking up dietary reccomendations every 10 years. Just end it faggot

[Anonymous No.10055909]

>>10055884
You should read Thinking, fast and slow.

Economic psychologist who won the nobel prize. Plenty of science in there. And it seems from your musings to the other poster, that his research is geared very much toward people like you. That's not a value judgement btw, we all do it.

I think you are conflating terrible economic tragedies routed in fallible human greed, and the science.

[Anonymous No.10055912]

>>10055909
>makes appeals to psychology
>not only a different field but literally not a science
just fucking kill yourself anon, why would you waste your time studying economics?

[Anonymous No.10055937]

>>10055912
No, it's applied epistemology. The same used in the other sciences. Can you explain why a repeatable, well articulated result exactly the same in other sciences, why psychology or economics is different? I'm just curious.

[Anonymous No.10055948]

>>10055937
>its the same because i said so, that’s why we don’t do experiments and constantly fail to make accurate predictions
>like when the economy crashed in 2007 or when Trump didn’t crash the economy after the election
>repeatable
they don’t do experiments, they have no controls, their theories are competing. Physics converged around Standard Model and QM, Economics is a competition between neo-austrian crypto pushing lunatics and neo-keynesian pedophiles who ignore elite collusion with politicians, and then people like Ayres and Picketty who just see the whole thing crashing fairly soon as it runs out of labor and energy. You’re probably the most devious group of retarded pretentious pseuds in existence now that theology is not funded or taken seriously. Enjoy your columbian necktie when the lights go out fag

[Anonymous No.10055957]

>>10055948
I'm a biologist.

Again, you've conflated terrible interpretations or methodologies of when politicians pander to economic ideas. Much the same as when philosophers and physicists lead the charge against Newton etc.

Your claim was that psychology is not a science and is not something you can do experiments with. You can.

What's really troubling is I'm not sure if you are just joking behind a keyboard, or if you are actually getting really angry and believe this stuff.

Sounds like your system 1 is taking control thanks to the heuristics you've learned. But wait.. That's not proven or repeatedly demonstrated!

Start off nice and easy and learn about base rates and system bias. Make your way up from there. From your ramblings, you'd be very interested in learning about cascade effects. But your cognitive bias would most likely preclude you from being able to interpret that information. It's a real shame. People like you are bad for science

[Anonymous No.10055959]

>>10055909
>Economic psychologist who won the nobel prize.

Don't use authority arguments us, especially about a prize that awards Hayek and Myrdal in the same year, please.

Economics could be useful, but not in the form that the mainstream economics schools are designed. The core of it remains in antiquated and obsolete theories of behaviorism and futile attempts to quantify utility in long time spans.

[Anonymous No.10055963]

>>10055959
Agreed. Hence why kahneman was a breath of fresh air for the nobel prize for his discoveries with Amos.

[Anonymous No.10055973]

>>10055963
I agree but not mention that fucking prize ever again.

[Anonymous No.10057775]

>>10055884
>they perform no experiments
they primarily look at natural experiments, and they also use experimental economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics
>innacurate predictions constantly
wrong. where do people come up with this garbage? Physicists make terrible engineers, but we don't' see people complaining about bridges being built, or armchair engineers talking about how bridges should be built. We don't complain about the weatherman, or have armchair weathermen.
>their ideas about equilibriums are insane and the notion of supply and demand has no physical correlates.
All wrong again. In fact, you are so wrong, we've even done experiments with rats by giving them a budget constraint between two goods, changing that budget constraint, and seeing how they react. Hell, we've even evaluated the economics of brushing your teeth.
>CBT is not proven to have any long term benefits to most patients and is based on a flawed theory of mind.
Again, aaaaallll wrong. We study the effects of different types of therapy through statistical evaluation. CBT (as well as other methods like DBT) have proven to be effective.
>Medical science churns out harmful surgeries and prescription drugs near constantly along with fucking up dietary reccomendations every 10 years.
So you are a holistic "medicine" person. Got it.

Enjoy your horoscopes and reading tea-leafs!

[Anonymous No.10057797]

>>10055948
>they don’t do experiments, they have no controls, their theories are competing.
nope. nope. nope.
the theories are not competing. When two economists get into an argument, it's about what possible policy prescription would be more effective. There is a grey area with the question of "how much" or "could we do this even better?", just as a group of engineers might get into a debate on how to best design a new project to minimize certain costs and maximize certain benefits. The fundamental difference are the social factors that come into play.
There *isn't* a grey area on the methodology.

It's pretty stupid to expect to help out a highly religious remote city with a focus on the textile industry in India having trouble with overpop and STD's, for example, by giving them a stack of free condoms, but you might be able to encourage safe sex in other ways which fit that lifestyle. This is what economists debate about. They don't debate on whether or not proper incentives matter, or the methodology to understand incentives.