/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10411771]

Economics is the most interesting science.

Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.10411776]

>Economics
>Not science, bastardizes math

[Anonymous No.10411778]

>they think Economics isn’t a science.

Every mathematician/engineer is actually laughing at YOU

[Anonymous No.10411780]

>>10411776
Economics has more parallels to particle physics than, say, biology or some other pseudoscientific field

[Anonymous No.10411791]

Science must be reproducible. At best Economics is a pseudoscience that attempts to understand culture through an economic framework but just like other pseudosciences is entirely an interpretive charade based on indoctrination and political bias.

[Anonymous No.10411792]

I think we can all agree it can be an extremely mathematically complex field, but certain areas of it are just quackery like Austrian economics

[Anonymous No.10411798]

>>10411791
We are constantly reproducing the results of past sociological decisions every day.

That’s what a Game theorist would say motherfucka

[Anonymous No.10411799]

>>10411771
>Economics is the most interesting science.
Economists do not use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10411806]

>>10411799
Neither does biology or engineering.

Some sciences are practical, they have applications. When a physicist tests the results of certain experiments you’d have to imagine an economist doing the same thing but with theoretical models for different parties in an exchange.

Just so me a favor and look into either the Lausanne school, the Neoclassical school, or Game Theory.

All are mathematically intensive areas of economics

[Anonymous No.10411833]

>>10411792
Austrians are basically right wing marxists.

[Anonymous No.10411883]

>>10411806
What applications have economics ? Did they find a cure to speculation ? Did they build a machine that distributes wealth ?

[Anonymous No.10411903]

>>10411883
>Did they build a machine that distributes wealth ?
That’s called the Federal Reserve and they use it to counterbalance fluctuations in currency value.

The cure to speculation is limits on trading options for stocks and bonds. Keynes was a fan of that idea.

>>10411833
Yeah those are both pretty bad huh?

[Anonymous No.10411927]

>>10411806
Biology does indeed follow the scientific method. You would either need to have not taken a college level biology course or be ignorant as to what the scientific method is to arrive at that conclusion. Engineering does not since it's more of an application of science rather than attempting to expand scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10411928]

>>10411780
well if you just do covert physics and biology then yeah, otherwise no not really
>>10411806
>Neither does biology
How can you even think that's correct?

[Anonymous No.10411937]

>>10411771
economics is a religion used by The Consumers to rationalize their obscene and gluttonous consumption.

[Anonymous No.10411954]

>>10411780
>Biology
>Pseudoscientific
I forgot that geneticists were on par with astrologists.
Biology is unquestionably a science, it requires extensive experimentation and strong theoretical framework. Think of DNA and genetics. Think of molecular evolution. Think of neuroscience.

I see you, as an economist, are clearly more educated to classify what is or is not a science despite not having valid experimentation upon which you build a theoretical framework.

[Anonymous No.10411956]

>>10411928
Just do me a favor and read Mathematical Investigations by Irving Fisher and get back to me.
>>10411778
This is from that.

>>10411927
Because Engineering is a ‘practical’ science. Much like Economics

[Anonymous No.10411959]

>>10411954
>neuroscience
I agree with the point you're making but neuroscience is one of the weakest of the life sciences in terms of being rigorous or replicating well, evolutionary theory, physiology, molecular biology and genetics all are grounded in mechanical theory and have at least in the last few decades begun to merge with physics and become more quantitative. Not saying its not a science, it is just one of the weaker fields.

[Anonymous No.10411963]

>>10411954
Get back to me when any of that actually helps anything out for the better.

Nothing you even listed could be categorized as a human achievement. It’s all stupid manipulations of genetic code. Lol, yeah sure biology is about as much of a science as family history 101

[Anonymous No.10411973]

>>10411956
No, Engineering is not a "practical" science, it's an applied science. There is a distinct difference between those two terms.

Engineering is predominantly based off of the natural sciences of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, in addition to earth sciences. Using the natural laws established by these sciences via experimentation, engineers design solutions to problems or systems to increase efficiency in certain tasks. It is an application of objective natural law.

Consider the subject of history. Is it practical? Sure. But is it a science? No, there's no experimentation by which theoretical proposals can be dismissed or reinforced. Economics is the same way, except with mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10411983]

>>10411959
I agree with you that neuroscience definitely could use more solid research, but then again so could all of science since constant growth of knowledge is at the heart of what science is. It may be underdeveloped right now but given time it will more than likely become more quantitate in nature as technology develops to allow for better measurements and more creative experimental designs are devised.

Again I see your point, but where it stands I personally think it's a bit too early to reach a verdict.

[Anonymous No.10411986]

>>10411780
>biology
>psuedoscientific field

[Anonymous No.10411989]

>>10411963
>Get back to me when any of that actually helps anything out for the better.
That is not what qualifies something as a 'science'

[Anonymous No.10411990]

>>10411973
This isn’t a debate. Things are either practical or theoretical. They fall in one of those two categories. Economics and engineering are practical.

Biology deals with theories, as do Physics.

[Anonymous No.10411991]

>>10411986
Shut the fuck up retard. Do me a favor and off yourself.
>>10411989
So that’s a no then, we above

[Anonymous No.10411996]

>>10411771

>publish some horseshit paper using Regression Analysis

>get rep among profs

>publish more in grad school

>never contribute anything to the real world and just make it your life's goal to publish until you're tenured at a good uni

>the number of pages you've published is higher than the amount of money you have in the bank

It's absolute shit

[Anonymous No.10411999]

>>10411963
When anything helps out for the better? Allow me to make a small list of the many benefits to humanity that biology is responsible for.
General Biology:
>Vaccinations and antibiotics
>Understanding of origins via evolution (as well as predictive models of viral and bacterial diseases that result from an advanced understanding of natural selection)
>Highly detailed anatomical and physiological models upon which modern medicine is built
Genetics:
>Treatments for disorders such as muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and genetic blindness
>Advanced understanding of cellular function, allowing for illnesses to be better treated via the design of drugs that treat the direct cause of the condition
>Genetic modification of crops to increase nutritional value or instill resistance to a certain pathogen, resulting in more reliable food sources for impoverished nations.

I could go on. When it comes to "bread on the table" achievements, Biology is not the science to criticize.

[Anonymous No.10412009]

>>10411990
Again, you're incorrect. Science (specifically physics) is split via experimental and theoretical. Practicality has no place in the scientific method since the goal is producing knowledge, not to serve a specific purpose.

Biology is far more of an experimental science, which Physics tends to be more equal. When people discuss Physics, they tend to discuss theory, but without the experimentation the theories of Physics are useless.

Economics lacks widespread and reliable experimental results. Therefore, by definition, it is not a science. That is not to say it can't become one, but as it stands it would be simply incorrect to call it a science.

You seem to be unsure of what exactly makes science what it is. I would recommend reading some of Carl Sagan's work since he breaks it down rather nicely without being technical.

[Anonymous No.10412010]

>>10411996
Kek. All too true. Notably, many econ, finance, or business academics are poorfags

[Anonymous No.10412011]

>>10411999
>antibiotics
Makes human society weaker and the viruses stronger. Thank you.
>understanding of a THEORY
Thank you
>more medicine
Thank you doc, I’ll take more pills nao
>treatments for genetic disorders
I will grant you that one
>GMOs
HAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

I’m done with you

[Anonymous No.10412016]

>>10411991
>Making emotionally charged arguments without providing any real evidence
>Generally talking out of their ass

Exactly what one would expect from someone who studies a pseudoscience like economics :^)

[Anonymous No.10412020]

>>10412009
Absolutely not. Science is built off of a need for a workforce. Most of science is practical like engineering or computer science. You honestly should do yourself a favor and do some research about where things come from and how they develop into what they are.
>Gets his definitions of science from the first pop-sci professor
Oh my you can’t be serious. Did you do your dissertation on Star Trek too, ya flamin homo?

Economics is a science. You butthurt fags are making my postcount grow

[Anonymous No.10412028]

>>10412016
It’s the same as, say, reading pure mathematics, or reading descriptions of theories in particle physics.

There is a system, there are variables, there are different probabilities of different behaviors or maneuvers (especially in Game Theory), so it can be very mathematical and systematically intensive. Regressive analysis and other sorts of things definitely lend an ear to why it’s called a science. Can’t have economics without the theory, but it’s definitely practical

[Anonymous No.10412032]

>>10412011
>Makes human society weaker and the viruses stronger.
Big claim there. Going to need some experimental data to back that up.
>understanding of a THEORY
Most of economics is theory without any real application due to the insane assumptions required for it to work
>I’ll take more pills nao
I can see you forgot to take your resperidone this morning
>Not understanding the science behind GMO's enough to know that GMO's pose no health risks
I ought to be done with you considering I'm not convinced you have the mental capacity to be open to objective evidence

[Anonymous No.10412036]

>>10412010
That’s not me and I’m an eco fag. You wish I were poor, biofagoid

[Anonymous No.10412040]

>>10412032
I’m smirking at how idiotic you are. You don’t want me to take the gloves off and wipe the floor with you.

‘Mental capacity’. This guy is brainwashed and he’s making fun of me. Ya ok bud

[Anonymous No.10412043]

>>10412020
The definition of science isn't variable, it's a standardized thing, people like Sagan just put it in a way that people like you who don't understand what science actually is can understand.

Considering I have degrees in Biochemistry and Physics, I feel confident in my research as to what science is.

[Anonymous No.10412045]

It has come to my attention that OP is correct and most of you are studying lesser sciences like biology and engineering while OP soars above your heads gallantly, studying Economics

[Anonymous No.10412047]

>>10412028
Practicality and use of mathematics does not make it a science. Experimentation does. Economics lacks reliable and widespread experimentation, and thus is not a science.

It's really just that simple.

[Anonymous No.10412050]

>>10412043
The definition of anything is variable. I’m sure people said the definition of the universe wasn’t variable too, before they realized it wasn’t Geocentric.

I’m going to guess you have no idea what I’m talking about though. Far too absorbed with meaningless terms developed on prime time TV.

Jfc

[Anonymous No.10412054]

>>10412047
Engineering has no experimentation because it is largely practical. A stress test here and there obviously doesn’t class engineering as theoretical

That being said, economics also has various sorts of stress tests of their own. I honestly don’t see how you wouldn’t say economics is a practical science.

[Anonymous No.10412057]

>>10412040
>I’m smirking at how idiotic you are. You don’t want me to take the gloves off and wipe the floor with you.

I clearly am no match to your omnipotent intellect.

[Anonymous No.10412062]

>>10412057
At least you recognize my omnipotence

[Anonymous No.10412068]

>>10412050
The definition of science has not changed since its conception as a result of it being a very clearly defined method. You can claim that it is variable, but we very clearly observe otherwise.

Again, I have studied Physics, so I do know what you're talking about. The discovery that the expanding universe lacked a center was a consequence of the scientific method as people realized that space itself was expanding rather than celestial objects moving away from each other at accelerating rates.

The definition of the things science explores can vary, but the scientific method itself is not altered in the process.

[Anonymous No.10412092]

>>10412068
Sounds like we both have studied science. I just haven’t studied Carl Sagan. I suppose that’s what separates us.

>The definition of the things science explores can vary, but the scientific method itself is not altered in the process
So you’re going back on what you previously said. Neat

[Anonymous No.10412111]

>>10411771

It has less practical application than many other sciences.

[Anonymous No.10412130]

>>10412111
How so? Without it, the whole world would most likely be in shambles.

It takes a certain degree of expertise to manage the interest rate and quantity of money in circulation

[Anonymous No.10412159]

>>10412130
>>10412111
But that being said of course that’s obviously not the only application of economics. It spans a wide range of tasks and occupations which is why it’s a science.

Game theory has influenced fields like computer science and the whole idea is that certain legislatures have taken note of the findings in the field when thinking about coalitions, unions, or society in general

[Anonymous No.10412213]

>>10412159

In a more primitive state, many of the other sciences would be more useful, although economics would be useful it wouldn't nearly be as useful, which is why I find it less interesting than many other sciences.

[Anonymous No.10412881]

>>10412213
Interestingly enough, Pareto analyzes the basic principle of exchange, psychologically. These are independent of society.

Also interestingly, the principles of exchange and the essentiality of theoretical coalitions in society exist regardless of if the people are there or not... if that makes any sense

[Anonymous No.10412888]

>>10411771
>goyim theory
kek

[Anonymous No.10412897]

>>10412888
>hurt sure Jewish so bad

[Anonymous No.10412899]

>>10412888
>hurr durr Jewish, so bad