[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 94 KB, 477x358, asdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299138 No.2299138 [Reply] [Original]

How does sci feel about Economics? Real science or pseudo science?

>> No.2299159

It's not even a pseudoscience. It's pissing in the wind.

>> No.2299175

>>2299138

Econ major here, its really not a bad science, it's just really hard to make realistic models and verify them empirically. It also has a lot of psychological problems built in because humans aren't rational beings who always try to maximize their utility etc.

There definitely is science to it, we have verified quite a few theories and models, but overall its a soft science.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/794/

There's an interesting video talking about how economists have "physics" envy. Quite true.

As it is now, I think I like Statistics > Economics
Stats has the sexy math aspect, plus it is so versatile. You can apply it to almost any field. From finance, to biology to nanotech, etc.

Since most of my upper level Econometrics courses are just applied Stats, I'm definitely going to try to get into a Statistics Masters, rather than an Econ Masters program.

>> No.2299184

Define 'science'.

>> No.2299181

/sci/ hates it because all experience defies the models they have significant emotional investment in.

>> No.2299187

It is similar to climate science.

>> No.2299191

>>2299175


Jon Von Neuman said Economics is the hardest science (hard as in difficult). He appreciated it and worked quite a bit on economic theory. So if a scientist of his caliber respects economics, then there is something to it.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/794/

very neat ^

>> No.2299233

>>2299191

holy shit.

>> No.2299240

OP here...I'm an applied math, econ dbl major. Thanks for the video it looks interesting.

>> No.2299277
File: 27 KB, 512x384, homer suave.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299277

>>2299240

physics envy video @ 24:30
>mfw "injecting randomness to make something more predictable"

that's quite bizarre

>> No.2299289
File: 200 KB, 435x580, 1294179424810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299289

This is what I think.

>> No.2299292

Economics is below Sociology in my book

>> No.2299299

Ideally, it would be a science. It is harder though for economists to be considered true scientists because of the corrupting effect of money. That is to say, in economics there are other monetary incentives other than publishing scientific papers.

>> No.2299300

Rothbard called it a soft science, I agree with him.

>> No.2299303

>>2299277
it actually comes up quite a bit in emergent phenomenon, neural networks and genetic algorithms often benefit from added noise, Its always amused me how similar the emotive rejection of the power of free markets is to the rejection of the creative power of evolution.

>> No.2299308

Economics is a failed attempt at science. Markets are complex phenomenon, and are hard to study scientifically. So economics try to make rough models, and when those models fail, they try their hardest to defend the failed models that they spent their careers promoting.

Keynesians, meet the stagflation of the 1970s, "but, but, but, OPEC! Thats right, it was OPEC! There is nothing wrong with Keynes, he is God."

>> No.2299318

It doesn't matter how we classify Economics and how it stacks up vs other sciences. The problem is we NEED to practice economics, we need to understand how people work, how markets and incentives work and we need good monetary/fiscal mechanisms that can stabilize disturbances in the economy.

We know that increasing the money supply to GDP ratio leads to inflation, and hyper-inflation. Stupid countries like Zimbambwe who have horrible economists and corrupt politicians don't get it, and they screw up their economy.

Doesn't matter how HARD Economics might be, we HAVE to do it. String theory is fucken hard, it isn't really "empirical" yet...but we have to do it.

Eventually it will be more concrete and reliable, but Modern Economics is quite young. Give it time.

>> No.2299320

>>2299299
>implying the pressure to publish doesn't corrupt scientists

>> No.2299317

>>2299308
/thread

>> No.2299324
File: 28 KB, 400x311, billandted2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299324

>>2299318

fucken economics White Knight to the rescue

>> No.2299327
File: 3 KB, 126x93, zorak_coffee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299327

It can be a science when it's applications have ethics standards.

>> No.2299330

>>2299175

>http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/794/

Suddenly economics and finance don't seem so boring.

>> No.2299339

>>2299318
>We know that increasing the money supply to GDP ratio leads to inflation
No, no we don't know this. Monetarist theories are not fact.

>> No.2299336

>>2299327
so I guess molecular biology is not a science if steam-cell research has ethic standards, whether you consider them to be valid or not.

>> No.2299340
File: 1.22 MB, 1680x1050, 125314029731.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299340

>>2299327

So nuclear physics isn't a science everytime someone makes a bomb?

>> No.2299341

Economics is not science. Its simple practice. If we call economics science why dont we call cooking or cleaning science?

>> No.2299344

>>2299320
>implying pressure to publish isn't balanced by the pressure on other scientists to call your bullshit out

>> No.2299353

>>2299344
>implying publishers are not biased towards publishing positive results more often than negative ones

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

>> No.2299359

>>2299336

Molecular biology DOES have ethics standards dumbass.If there were none, we would be doing stem-cell research.

Also
>steam cells
19th century biotech!

>> No.2299362

>>2299339

u dun goofed.

rapid increase of Money Supple, equals lower real wages, equals less buying power, equals less consumption, equals higher price of goods coupled with stagnating GDP equals increased general price level = definition of inflation

this has been observed empirically time and time again, it makes sense, it's how it works, deal with it

>> No.2299378

fucken economics, how does it work?

>> No.2299380

>>2299362
>states theory to prove that theory is not theory

Provide a single data set with an r value greater than .7, because there isn't one. And only social science retards would accept such low values.

>> No.2299386

>>2299340
That's nuclear engineering, scientist don't know how to use their discoveries.

>> No.2299390

It's pretty fucking hard to study economic theories scientifically.

All of the "human" sciences have this problem; we can't experiment.

>> No.2299391
File: 72 KB, 640x359, ECON.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299391

>>2299378

>> No.2299399

>>2299380

derp, lets use unrealistic parameters to measure social phenomena that have been observed over and over again

>> No.2299400

>>2299391
If there is anyone that knows, it is the super rich moron in that image.

>> No.2299415

>>2299380

its actually almost axiomatic

you can't even get hyper-inflation without an excessive increase in the money supply, either real or nominal and a shitty GDP

>> No.2299446

>>2299415
>derp, let pretend that economics will ever be a science if it ignores the methods of every other real science

>> No.2299469

>>2299415
>defending something on the basis that it is axiomatic and scientific

Science is always observational, and never axiomatic

>> No.2299478

>>2299415
This is why economists will never be scientists. You ask them for data, and they tell you it is axiomatic.

>> No.2299486
File: 34 KB, 460x276, smoke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299486

>>2299446
>>2299469
>>2299478

U mad cuz im styling on you $$$$$ cash money yo, economics > physics

>> No.2299519

>>2299486
>looks at highest paying jobs in US, doesn't see economists. Sees engineers and physicists, wonders why economists claim to know so much about money, yet can't see to be bothered to make any.

>> No.2299537

>>2299519

>assumes economists have the job title "economist"

very few have the job title "economist" except Academics, which make good money as profs.

the rest are in finance, insurance, risk management, regulations, investments, statistical analysis...etc

their earning potential is much higher than any engineer/scientist.

>> No.2299542
File: 6 KB, 252x229, 1270286440976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299542

>>2299486
>economists
>money
i got a degree in econ and biochem. my starting salary was 50k working for a government agency.

>> No.2299544

>>2299486
>this is what frat boy wigger econ major actually think.

>> No.2299549
File: 77 KB, 600x543, draper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299549

>masters in econ
>work at goldman sachs
>???
>120k start, unlimited bonuses

>> No.2299556

>>2299339
>increase currency to GDP ratio
>inflation results
>every single time
I'd say the evidence is pretty definitive.

>> No.2299560

>>2299549
You lucky son of a... but I digress Goldman Sachs will be run down once the liburl revolution begins.

>> No.2299561

>>2299537
>thinks that anyone with those job titles majored in economics rather than business or statistics

>> No.2299562
File: 29 KB, 300x307, 1270985126583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299562

>>2299549
>jewcock sucks
>economics related
enjoy your gambling bro

>> No.2299563

>>2299556
>quotes himself, still doesnt provide data

>> No.2299572

>>2299563

zimbabwe

>> No.2299575

>>2299542
GD, my starting salary was 50k with stock options and I have a liberal arts degree. Seems like you worked a little too had for that 50k.

>> No.2299582

>>2299572
>thinks data doesn't need to be repeated hundreds of time to prove something, still doesn't provide data

>> No.2299594

>>2299582
>Germany
>USA
>Argentina
>etc.

>> No.2299597

>>2299582

Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

Most if not all of these cases can be traced to either a nominal or real disturbance in the currency markets / money supply. Rapid increase in the velocity of money increases the price level while GDP goes down the shitter.

>> No.2299601

>>2299597
So if people decide to hold on the money, the inflation won't happen. In other words, what you are saying is a law of economics is actually a tendency of human behavior. Difference between science and economics officially established.

>> No.2299603

>enjoy your gambling bro
Why does he care? He works at GS, he gambles with other peoples money

>> No.2299606

>>2299601

Economics has a hypothesis.

That hypothesis has been verified over and over again.

Economics has many scientific models/theories that work. The hard part is getting the data and making the observations.

Economics is now a science. Good day sir.

>> No.2299617

>>2299601

>>So if people decide to hold on the money, the inflation won't happen.

Their currency will still be devalued since foreign assets of domestic currency will also increase.
Wages, production, employment will still go down since people are saving instead of consuming/investing. This could result in deflation.


But since, money doesn't accrue interest, people don't hold it, they invest it or buy bonds which pay interest.

>> No.2299629

>>2299606
>claims there is data, provides none of it, claims he is a scientist

I believe it is true, but what you are describing is the quantity theory of money, which is by no mean uncontroversial and does not have the kind of unquestionable data in its favor that you are supposing it to have.

>> No.2299632

>>2299629

the data is out there, you can start by reading the wikipedia article and then its sources. its not a simple matter of looking at numbers, you have to know the history of each country

>> No.2299657

>>2299318
You don't get to determine what people consider important. If the distinction matters to someone, then the distinction matters. A ^ B ~ A.

>> No.2299683

>>2299657

>If the distinction matters to someone, then the distinction matters

And the distinction doesn't matter to me, so it doesn't matter.

Good Economics matters to a lot of people, the "science" distinction doesn't matter to them either. So it doesn't matter

>> No.2299685

>>2299683

yep we need good economics more than we need good science right now

>> No.2299691

>>2299632
>implies wikipedia article present QTM as a uncontroversial theory with conclusive data proving it

>> No.2299701

>>2299691

>isn't aware that wikipedia cites academic sources

>> No.2299702

>>2299691

>didn't realize it's the QTM not Q hypothesis of M

fucken idiot

>> No.2299709

>>2299691

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-8.pdf

>> No.2299708

>>2299683
So.

(economics matters) ^ ~(economics matters) ~ null

Thus we can't responsibly make a statement on the binary truth value of economics' mattering, what was to be demonstrated. But this is silly.

>> No.2299711
File: 23 KB, 400x412, 1280283564_innocent ix.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299711

"Not a "gay science," I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." -Thomas Carlyle

>> No.2299717

>>2299709
17 cases of hyperinflation have been documented
... hyperinflation has only reared its ugly head when the supply of money had no natural constraints and was governed by a discretionary paper money standard.

this is fact. get over it.

>> No.2299719

>>2299711

he meant depressing, because a lot of it is pessimistic about the future. i.e Malthusian population crisis

>> No.2299735
File: 32 KB, 400x267, sadface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2299735

Economics a science?

>MFW Andrew Lo does not know the definition of "Inversely Proportional"

>> No.2299734 [DELETED] 

>>2299702
Wow, just wow. I suppose all the Keynesian, not to mention the Austrians, are crazy and should be completely ignored because they don't accept the quantity theory of money, which by your account is a completely accepted fact.

Don't pretend that something is universally accepted as fact when it is not. QTM is not accept by many people.

>> No.2299738

>>2299735
32:40 btw

>> No.2299739

>>2299702
>>2299717
Wow, just wow. I suppose all the Keynesian, not to mention the Austrians, are crazy and should be completely ignored because they don't accept the quantity theory of money, which by your account is a completely accepted fact.

Don't pretend that something is universally accepted as fact when it is not. QTM is not accept by many economists.

17 whole cases! That almost as many as have proved the theory of gravity!

>> No.2300158

>>2299542
50k ain't bad though.

>> No.2300174

As much as a science as psychology and (hopefully) the emerging science of morality.

There are truths to be known about economics, whether we know them or not. We can try to study it with the scientific method, it's just fucking hard.

I don't know really what makes a subject count as a science, it seems to me that anything you try to apply the scientific method should count as one.

It seems like Economics is at the beginning of a game of Sudoku, it needs the first couple numbers before any progress can be made.