Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

[a500lbgorilla]

Newton's laws aren't even provable.

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

[wufwugy]

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

[a500lbgorilla]

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

Economics is really tough, therefore economists don't know shit.* They've a better sense than anyone not studying Economics, though.

Edit: Alright, I can't be so grandiose. They know some things. I'm pretty sure a lot of micro stuff is pretty solid.

*Let me put it this way: It's much easier to convince everyone that you're right, than to actually be right.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

PS I've seen this article before. Welcome to the world of argument. Every side can be fought for. It usually takes Nature to step in to settle the debate.

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Plank, a dude that was right in the face of a bunch of dudes that were wrong.

[wufwugy]

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

Sadly the first paragraph shows the author making at least two mistakes about macroeconomics. Then he goes to say macro isn't a science. He could be right, but we're not going to know that from people who get macro wrong.

Since he mentioned it a few times in the article, "forecasting" is not what macro does. To loosely quote from memory a macroeconomist, Scott Sumner, "If a model could predict a recession it would be changed so that the recession was no longer predicted". This means that recessions happening has no bearing on the veracity of macroeconomic claims. That's also assuming political policy is that which textbook economics might advocate in the first place, which is far from the case.

Macro uses the scientific method constantly. Every form of claim-making and discovery does. Some have just real shitty tools.

[a500lbgorilla]

Macro uses the scientific method constantly.

What is the scientific method?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either.

The fundamental axioms of all fields are unprovable. What's your point?

It is a misconception that the goal science is to make "true" statements. Truth is beyond the realm of the scientific process. It never comes up. It's not that science is "unconcerned" with truth, so much as science is completely devoted to disproving false-hood. The notion that disproving falsehood is in any way logically linked with creating truth or finding truth is a non sequitur. Failure to prove statement false is not a proof that the statement is true. It's just an open door for another attempt to prove falsehood.

The goal of the scientific process is to make falsifiable statements and try as hard as we can to observe that they are false, and to report all experimental observations, without bias.

There is no such thing as an inertial reference frame?
SMH

***
@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

Sorry, upon re-read... this sounds like I'm being rude. I don't mean it to be harsh.

I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.

So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.

I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/

***
It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field. If you have kids, or once were one, then you know the process of scientific inquiry starts very early. The hypotheses may be unstated, but the experiments and conclusions are quite real. It's always been the case that old statements are discarded for new statements. All the old statements were wrong, and it stands to reason that all the current statements will be old statements someday.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field.

Were they being scientific when they rolled out this theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

When I say Economics is not a science, I say it because it cannot follow the process.

This guy basically lays out the process

http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/co...nomics/cn2qy3p

It appears the math professor couldn't handle the fact that in economics:

We have models, wherein all the rules and mechanisms are clearly defined;

We have the real world, where it's a lot harder to boil things down to a few transparent mechanisms.

We use the former to clarify our thinking about the latter.

Models are fully-articulated artificial economies where the researcher has full control over the preferences, the production functions, and the trading arrangements. We then figure out properties of those model economies, identify key transmission mechanisms, and poke them to see how they react.

Then we reason by analogy to the real world.

And if you think the assumptions don't reflect the real world along some first-order dimension, you build a competing model where you have different trading arrangements, or different utility functions, or different production functions, or whatever. Then you see how far from the benchmark your model takes you.

It's a very strong method, but it isn't the scientific method.

[wufwugy]

I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.

So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.

I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/

It's not just you. I know I do this. Like everybody, I say things that make sense to me, but that doesn't mean they make sense to others. I also try to do more than one thing at a time, so I will often in one post say something clear, something speculative, and something in an attempt to rebut potential arguments against, all without clear transitions.