/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2177726]

Does economics qualify as science?

[Anonymous No.2177732]

What control economy was used during testing of their theories?

[Anonymous No.2177804]

>>2177726

[Anonymous No.2177825]

Yes it does. It's harder than regular science as testing your theories takes decades so regular scientific method such as peer review etc... is not feasible.

There are giants who have stood the test of time though. For example Milton Friedman. His theories were followed in Chile and Estonia.

He is dead now but he got to see Chile becoming richest country in South Africa and Estonia becoming richest country of former USSR.

[Anonymous No.2177842]

>>2177732
> What control economy was used during testing of their theories?

You could just as easily ask an astrophysicist what control universe they used.

A control group is good practice if it's possible. If it isn't possible, it doesn't automatically invalidate all evidence. Usually it just means that you need a much bigger sample to get the same level of confidence.

[Anonymous No.2177859]

I remember when Nobel Prize winning chemist Peter Agre was on The Colbert Report.

Colbert: Can you win a Nobel Prize for throwing your own feces?

Agre: I believe that's the economics prize...

That pretty much echos my thoughts. It's a pseudo-science, and Milton Friedman is a troll.

Also, 99% of economists cannot understand the mathematics of economics due to shitty curriculum. They must have mathematicians/theoretical physicists do the math for them.

[Anonymous No.2177999]

>>2177859
Just as humans have computers do the calculations for them. It'll be the day when someone from /sci/ wins a nobel prize. Most of the people here will never amount to anything.

[Anonymous No.2178014]

>>2177859
erm a pseudo science would mean false claims with a certain motivation behind it, how would any kind of speculation so broadly presented all be considered a sham?

[Anonymous No.2178031]

>>2178014
Religion, man.

[Anonymous No.2178043]

Well all the decent economics i know of currently usually have double degrees, economy/math or economy/physics and so on, because as someone said, economists -usually- are rather poor at math.

[Anonymous No.2178064]

>>2177859
>Also, 99% of economists cannot understand the mathematics of economics due to shitty curriculum.

Economics B.A. != economist
Economics Ph.d = economist

[Anonymous No.2178072]

>>2177825
2/10. get the continent right next time

[Anonymous No.2178083]

Here's one way of looking at it. You've got economists, who are sitting around a conference table, frantically working and trying to get the economy into some semblance of stability.

Then you have average joe on the street who only sees that the factory he used to work at has been outsourced.

There are a lot more average joes than there are economists. So more people perceive that economists are useless/can't do their jobs, which is a completely unfair presumption.

[Anonymous No.2178087]

Biochem major here
Though I have no strong feelings for soft sciences like economics, they are sciences none the less. The problem is, as previously stated, you cannot set up controlled experiments and are left with observation and imperfect manipulation. While this does make conclusions more difficult and subjected, it doesn't mean economics is a psuedoscience. After all, a lot of astronomy relies on a limited number of unobservable data that cannot be manipulated in a controlled manner (or at all), but it is a hard science.
The other problem is that economics, sociology, and psychology all make generalisations about human behaviour, and while all science is inherently a simplified model of real-world events, models of human behaviour tend to be so simplified as to be unfeasible in many cases. So basically, it is a science, just one where conclusions are almost impossible to verify.

[Anonymous No.2178091]

>>2178072
What is your problem? Just a brainfart of writing continent of South-Africa instead of South-America, what does it negate?

[Anonymous No.2178092]

>>2178083
>You've got economists, who are sitting around a conference table, frantically working and trying to get the economy into some semblance of stability.
Hehehe.

[Anonymous No.2178099]

>>2178014
>erm a pseudo science would mean false claims with a certain motivation behind it
>certain motivation behind it

ummm... you mean like "experts" working for banks forming opinions that effect states' and international policies?

does this one count?

[Anonymous No.2178103]

At my uni, it's common (for us science-/engineer fags) to take economy classes, parallel to our actual courses, to score free "study points" and thus getting a larger scholarship. We do psychology classes and intro classes for other subjects as well.

Free money from the government!

[Anonymous No.2178106]

>>2178083
people know economists are useless because all of the grad students with funding are already in the pockets of some large financial firm, and all of the doctorates will take any grant they can (from a large financial institution, might I add.)

only the ones working at the fed have a shred of dignity, and even then hardly the administrative power to accomplish what they need to do. all they have is LOL 3 trillion in bailout money to delay the depression another 14 months.

[Anonymous No.2178114]

>>2178106
You could say that for any scientists. Chemists mostly work for companies. Medical doctors are in the pockets of pharmacies. Everybody else is too tied up in academia to care about the real world.

Or you could get your head out of your ass and realize that people are trying their best in a world that isn't fair.

[Anonymous No.2178118]

>>2178114
people are trying their best in a world that isn't fair =/= sell my soul to the highest bider

[Anonymous No.2178120]

>>2178087
I disagree. Science is supposed to make predictions based on experiment, and while economics in some cases steer people in the right direction, the whole economy and stock market rests on the fact that nobody can know for sure what will be the best bet, there will always be risk involved. The dynamics also change based on how much knowledge people have about the economic system. Accurate predictions will never be possible, and therefore it's not a science.

[Anonymous No.2178123]

>>2178114
my head won't be so far up my ass once this country has been driven into the ground by irresponsible financial practice

[Anonymous No.2178124]

>>2178120
By that argument, quantum mechanics is not science.

[Anonymous No.2178138]

>>2178123
>3 trillion in bailout taxmoney to delay the depression another 14 months
>mfw libertarians bawww about welfaretrash spending their hard worked money

[Anonymous No.2178143]

>>2178138
this guy thinks I'm a libertarian? I guess that's what happens when you spend too much time on 4chan. you start stereotyping everybody, and your social skills go out the window

[Anonymous No.2178148]

>>2178124

You can make scarily accurate predictions with quantum mechanics.
The magnetic moment of the electron.

[Anonymous No.2178178]

>>2178143
chill down, comrade

I just made a generic observation in light of your comment.

[Anonymous No.2178185]

Define "economics."

> the study of how individuals respond to incentives
clearly a science

> the description of how scarce resources are allocated
clearly a science

> the normative theories of how scarce resources should be allocated
clearly not a science

> the descriptive theories of how we can create incentives given normative theories about how resources should be allocated
probably a science, but a horrible one (washington policy wonkism)

[Anonymous No.2178197]

Anyone with Wiki username should post this horrible news there to wikipedia.