/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9893845]

“Economics is not a sci—“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

[Anonymous No.9894088]

>“Economics is not a sci—“
ence, because economists do not use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.9894095]

>>9894088
So what does that make psychology then?

[Anonymous No.9894165]

>>9894088
>>9894095
Both can use the scientific method.

The real question is how often must a field use the scientific method in order to be considered 'real' science.

If you think about it, the only real reason stuff like sociology and economics are considered 'soft' sciences is because creating many of the experiments for the two are unrealistic in scope. Just think about macroeconomics. It's not like we can have a test country and a control country in order to see if turning up gas prices does something or other, so we can only thread together bits and pieces from studies.

[Anonymous No.9894180]

>>9894165
There are various subjects where it's impossible to perform a well-designed, well-controlled experiment, like art, history, and economics. Even if building a "test country" was feasible, it's impossible to hold all other relevant factors constant to zero in on the impact of gas prices.

[Anonymous No.9894207]

>>9894088
Neither does science. Are you seven years old?

[Anonymous No.9894372]

>>9894088
What about geology or ecology?

[Anonymous No.9895071]

>>9894165
>>9894180
>>9894088
all these people who know nothing about statistics and think we use the Austrian school as our main economic model.
/sci/ is filled with a bunch of brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9895076]

>>9894372
add meteorology on that list too.

[Anonymous No.9895096]

>>9895071
The Austrian school is at least respectable to a degree because it begs the question against empirical investigation upfront

[Anonymous No.9895125]

>>9895096
Austrian school:
>You can't, like, know anything about human interaction in the market with, like, math - nerd. We are not, like, robots.

[Anonymous No.9895303]

>>9894180
No one ever posited that art and history are sciences, but economics on the other hand is offered as BS at some universities. There are plenty of experiments you can do on a microeconomic level.

[Anonymous No.9895325]

>>9895125
Yeah about the best you’re going to get in that direction is Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. It’s best appreciated after a read of Keynes’ General Theories to see exactly what they were arguing against.

Hayek is more of a political philosopher than an economist though. Scientific economics is the best. About to start reading John Von neumann and Morgansterns book on game theory

[Anonymous No.9895330]

>>9895125
Yes, and when they're upfront about rejecting observation and experiment outright, you know what kind of wavelength those people are on.
As opposed to the century-long string of failed predictions by every school of economics to get a policy heyday and protracted lack of consensus on fundamental issues whenever they try anything more complex than "rent control bad"

[Anonymous No.9895333]

>>9894095
>So what does that make psychology then?
Not a science either, since psychologists do not use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.9895336]

>>9893845
>wanting to give someone else the money you earned.
What a retard

[Anonymous No.9895338]

>>9895336
>>9893845
fixed bc I'm dumb

[Anonymous No.9895612]

>>9893845
i love social justice :^)))

[Anonymous No.9895785]

>>9895325
> About to start reading John Von neumann and Morgansterns book on game theory
It's not straightforward, anon. Full warning.
Neumann starts by saying everything follows from an elementary understanding of math, but he quickly builds it up into "what the fuck" land.

Its a good read to understand zero sum games. Though the von neuman-morgenstern axioms have been challenged due to nested probabilities being problematic - look up the Allias paradox.
The allias paradox is one of the "anomalies" which arose into behavioral economics today.

In any case, if you want a clearer, more modern, picture look up game theory by Martin J Osborne.

[Anonymous No.9896088]

>>9893845
fucking economy they make the shitties fuicking graphs I never get how they're supposed to be read:
>ok so say tax is 0%. then income is 25000
>tax 11%, then income is ~30000 or ~35000, and why is it higher in the first place

I only just realized the income determines the taxation rate fuck this shit

[Anonymous No.9896279]

>>9895303
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but many US universities offer BS degrees in subjects which aren’t too scientific. My undergrad ‘institution’ conferred BS degrees for Elementary Education, Accounting, Management, and Advertising.

[Anonymous No.9896291]

>>9893845
Is this Russia Federation reference?

Rossiya svyaschenaya nasha derzhava
Rossiya lyubimaya nasha strana

Or...

Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh ?

[Anonymous No.9896294]

>>9893845
Positivist's view on the economy is decadent and depraved.
Read "Capital".

[Anonymous No.9896311]

>>9894207

>science doesn't use the scientific method

Are you six years old?

[Anonymous No.9896325]

>>9896311
LOL. How's I Fucking Love Science? Let me tell you something: a scientist is not some guy in a lab applying "The Method" like a mechanical procedure all day until The Truths of the Universe fall out. Learn some epistemology my friend. Start by looking up epistemological anarchism--not the be-all-end-all itself, but a good starter to get you doubting the popperian dogma.

[Anonymous No.9896338]

>>9895612
this graph

[Anonymous No.9896465]

>>9896294
>lawl xD the tragedy of the commons is just a social construct, bro

[Anonymous No.9896468]

>>9894088
>the scientific method

[Anonymous No.9896473]

economics isn't a science, it's a religion focused on a theory of economics that doesn't actually exist

ever notice how most colleges with economics departments also have a separate business school with its own economics classes? it's cause they need to teach students how the economy ACTUALLY works before sending them into the non-academic world

[Anonymous No.9896479]

>>9895330
>century-long string of failed predictions by every school of economics to get a policy
>lack of consensus on fundamental issues
Literally untrue.
This is like talking to someone who thinks modern medicine is a sham.

The history of how the public perceives economics:
>The dominant idea is X
>Someone finds something contrary to X
>hehe looks like i found a mutated butterfly. guess that disproves X.

The public is literally a bunch of superstitious retards. They would see a helium balloon and think it disproves the existence of gravity.

[Anonymous No.9896695]

>>9896479
>>century-long string of failed predictions by every school of economics to get a policy
>>lack of consensus on fundamental issues
>Literally untrue.
>This is like talking to someone who thinks modern medicine is a sham.
Literally true.
This is like talking to someone who's a True Believer in homeopathy.

>The history of how the public perceives economics:
>>The dominant idea is X
>>Someone finds something contrary to X
>>hehe looks like i found a mutated butterfly. guess that disproves X.
>The public is literally a bunch of superstitious retards. They would see a helium balloon and think it disproves the existence of gravity.
What? We're talking about economists, economics, and economic policy, not public perceptions of something.

[Anonymous No.9896703]

Jesus I hate socialists

[Anonymous No.9896719]

>>9896703
That whole thing is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.9896763]

>>9896695
>What? We're talking about economists, economics, and economic policy, not public perceptions of something.
You are part of the public.
You have not studied economics.
You, just like everyone else, are overly skeptical of the subject, just like so many who are skeptical of modern medicine yet has not studied the subject.
The reason why the public is overly skeptical is because they think there are glaring issues in the field of economics which remain unanswered or contrary to popular belief.
They think consensus doesn't exist - it does.
They think some recent study, which shows contrary evidence to the dominant theory, is a blemish on the field - it's not.

All of this boils down to an ignorance of the field. It is a collective of people, who "know" everything about gravity, then witness a helium balloon for the first time and proclaim, "Well gravity does a good job at explaining a lot of stuff, but not this balloon."

If you present two economists to the public, one says, "I think there is a 60% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years", the other says, "I think there is a 70% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years," Suppose the housing market collapses in 2 years, the public will think, "Well I suppose the second economist was more correct than the first."

The public loves point-estimates and hates confidence intervals - confidence intervals are more difficult to comprehend. They also take point-estimates as absolute gospel. If economists says, "There is a 95% chance market X will not collapse in the next 5 years." If the market collapses, the public becomes outraged.

There are more examples, but overall the public is fucking retarded. They don't understand economics and neither do you.

[Anonymous No.9896826]

>>9896763
>You, just like everyone else, are overly skeptical of the subject, just like so many who are skeptical of modern medicine yet has not studied the subject.
>The reason why the public is overly skeptical is because they think there are glaring issues in the field of economics which remain unanswered or contrary to popular belief.
>They think some recent study, which shows contrary evidence to the dominant theory, is a blemish on the field - it's not.
>All of this boils down to an ignorance of the field. It is a collective of people, who "know" everything about gravity, then witness a helium balloon for the first time and proclaim, "Well gravity does a good job at explaining a lot of stuff, but not this balloon."
>If you present two economists to the public, one says, "I think there is a 60% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years", the other says, "I think there is a 70% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years," Suppose the housing market collapses in 2 years, the public will think, "Well I suppose the second economist was more correct than the first."
>The public loves point-estimates and hates confidence intervals - confidence intervals are more difficult to comprehend. They also take point-estimates as absolute gospel. If economists says, "There is a 95% chance market X will not collapse in the next 5 years." If the market collapses, the public becomes outraged.
>There are more examples, but overall the public is fucking retarded. They don't understand economics and neither do you.
Holy fugg ::::DDDDDD
That doesn't describe my position, I didn't say any of that, and you're charging at windmills lmao

>You are part of the public.
>You have not studied economics.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.9896963]

>>9896325
So I don't know about him, but in the lab I work in we apply this concept of falsifiability, where you aren't just making hypotheses but putting what you do through stress tests to see if there aren't contradictions. You can't always find it in topics like Evolutionary Psychology because it can be really hard to devise proper tests. We usually just call this "science" and not "the scientific method", but regardless of whether or not I perceive the person speaking to me to be a layman who uses terms like that, it doesn't mean they don't appreciate the process and should be viewed as stupid or ignorant about the kind of thinking we apply.

[Anonymous No.9896971]

>>9896963
Popper and naive falsificationism is not The End of Epistemology. In fact, it's basically The Method. I suggest reading Feyerabend's Against Method, my man.

[Anonymous No.9896972]

>>9896963
oh, and I said EvoPsych there because I got sidetracked by the comment about psychology, forgot this was economics. On that topic, I don't actually know if economics is a science because I do fuckall in that field. But basically you want to work with falsifiability; I suspect like any social science it's just really hard to know if you're missing details. Working on molecules is a lot more cut and dry than relying on something like world history, which is muddy and confusing.

[Anonymous No.9896981]

That feel when I'm a Economics / Psychology Double Major without a job..

[Anonymous No.9896984]

>>9896971
I'm actually not read on any science of philosophy (really all I've read is a few classic bits by like, Kant and some other nerds), this is mostly just my understanding through working in the area. I'll add Feyerabend to my reading list though, thanks for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.9896985]

>>9896984
er philosophy of science*

[Anonymous No.9897119]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmE-QnCWDbU

[Anonymous No.9899022]

>>9893845
>>9893845
economics should be applied complex adaptive systems theory, but instead its fuckwits fitting normal distributions to woefully small sample sizes and publishing papers on it

[Anonymous No.9899114]

>>9896971
You're really just gonna throw him in the deep end like that, huh.

[Anonymous No.9899118]

>>9899022
What's the deal with student t-curves? How come you can use them wih small sample sizes without it being wrong?

[Anonymous No.9899128]

>>9896985
I'm not that guy. I must mention that THAT particular Feyerabend guy is really some shit. Im not saying he is bad. he is a good guy. but DEFINITELY he is the Last one you should look it up in a elementary stage in a field of philosophy of science. try Kuhn, if you read that in early days, try Lakatos or Bachelard.

[Anonymous No.9899137]

>>9895338
You're still dumb, you didn't fix anything.

[Anonymous No.9899147]

>>9896981
>That feel when I'm a Economics / Psychology Double Major without a job..
If you were a woman you would have a Human Resources Job by now.

[Anonymous No.9899567]

>>9896826
>How do you know?
Okay let's review.
>century-long string of failed predictions by every school of economics to get a policy
>lack of consensus on fundamental issues
All of this is incorrect and is fueled by public miss-perceptions who have not studied econ.
The very same public, which doesn't know anything about statistics, let alone economics.
I am asserting you're part of that camp. Since, if you've studied economics extensively, you would not be reaching such a conclusion:
>century-long string of failed predictions by every school of economics to get a policy
>lack of consensus on fundamental issues
It's an entire college of work, anon.
At the very least, you are being hyperbolic.
At worst, you're delusional.
This is a well-documented effect, characterized by Robert Aumann's paper called Agree to Disagree:

http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4512.pdf

[Anonymous No.9899572]

>>9896981
Econ major is useless as a BA, and as a BS, you're pretty much forced to work as a high school teacher.
If you want to do anything with your degree, you need a graduate degree.

[Anonymous No.9899607]

>>9899567
>contradicts without contrary evidence
>you're wrong because i know you've never studied economics because you're wrong because i know you've never studied economics because
>mfw rekt

[Anonymous No.9899797]

>>9896763
AFAIK there is no consensus in economics on if minimum wage is good or how much debt a nation should carry.

[Anonymous No.9899799]

>>9899607
>>9899567
Both of you are retards who in the space of a dozen posts holding diametrically opposed positions havent cited any credible sources. Some of your posts are literally "no you".

[Anonymous No.9899807]

>Let's assume humans are rational and have perfect information about the market
And this is where it starts being a pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.9899819]

>>9896763
>If you present two economists to the public, one says, "I think there is a 60% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years", the other says, "I think there is a 70% chance the housing market will collapse in the next 2 years," Suppose the housing market collapses in 2 years, the public will think, "Well I suppose the second economist was more correct than the first."
kek
>The public loves point-estimates and hates confidence intervals - confidence intervals are more difficult to comprehend. They also take point-estimates as absolute gospel. If economists says, "There is a 95% chance market X will not collapse in the next 5 years." If the market collapses, the public becomes outraged.
kek
>There are more examples, but overall the public is fucking retarded. They don't understand economics and neither do you.
lol

[Anonymous No.9899861]

>>9893845
Why do economists never talk about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen
?

He tried to incorporate actual science into the field of economics. The fact that his work never became mainstream shows that economics is not only not a science, it is fundamentally anti-science.

[Anonymous No.9901712]

>>9899797
Just because there's no consensus on certain questions doesn't mean there's no consensus at all in economics. For example, there is consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers to trade has a positive effect on economic growth. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman agree.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs

[Anonymous No.9901726]

>>9899807
>I’m going to make a strawman and remain blissfully ignorant of the entire field of behavorial economics.