If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted determine so much in society?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Zugswang in my proof of No Odd Perfect Numbers #675 Correcting Math
Next: setting up a Math Induction template Re: Proof of the Infinitude of Perfect Numbers #676 Correcting Math
From: Rod Speed on 15 Jul 2010 02:45 Immortalist wrote: > It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft > sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, > while ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences. Its always been one of the woolier terms, with biology etc being included in the soft sciences. > One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous > scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for > hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much > more informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works, use it. Thats a very silly description of the soft sciences. > http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm > Economics is the social science that is concerned with the > production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics > Why do people trust economics as much as physics They dont. > when it is based upon such weak research methods comparatively. Because there is no alternative with economics.
From: Giga2 on 15 Jul 2010 03:10 On Jul 15, 12:16 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft > sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, while > ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences. > > One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous > scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for > hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much > more informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works, > use it. > > http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm > > Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production, > distribution, and consumption of goods and services. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics > > Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon > such weak research methods comparatively. What other option is there? Philosophy : )!
From: John Stafford on 15 Jul 2010 08:25 In article <c535c1d7-c47a-4f44-a4fb-5e85dc7d1dcb(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > [...] > Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon > such weak research methods comparatively. Do people really believe economics is a science? I do not. Nor does anyone I know (and I work in academe). If someone wants a laugh, look to the title Political Science!
From: John Stafford on 15 Jul 2010 08:28 The only people who can accurately predict economic trends are the very powerful, the very rich who control the economy.
From: Bret Cahill on 15 Jul 2010 11:32
> > It is customary to divide sciences into two categories, hard and soft > > sciences - examples of hard sciences are physics and astronomy, while > > ecology and psychology are often classified as soft sciences. > > > One group of sciences is also distinguished by strict and rigorous > > scientific standards, and close attention to formal standards for > > hypothesis formulation and testing. The other sciences take a much more > > informal approach, basically taking the view that if it works, use it. > > >http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm > > > Economics is the social science that is concerned with the production, > > distribution, and consumption of goods and services. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics > > > Why do people trust economics as much as physics when it is based upon > > such weak research methods comparatively. > > Unfortunately, all science is soft because humans are soft. > > "I write to you from a disgraced profession. Economic theory, as widely > taught since the 1980s, failed miserably to understand the forces behind > the financial crisis. Concepts including "rational expectations," "market > discipline," and the "efficient markets hypothesis" led economists to > argue that speculation would stabilize prices, that sellers would act to > protect their reputations, that caveat emptor could be relied on, and > that widespread fraud therefore could not occur. Not all economists > believed this but most did. > > Thus the study of financial fraud received little attention. Practically > no research institutes exist; collaboration between economists and > criminologists is rare; in the leading departments there are few > specialists and very few students. Economists have soft- pedaled the role > of fraud in every crisis they examined, including the Savings & Loan > debacle, the Russian transition, the Asian meltdown and the dot.com > bubble." > > = James K. Galbraith, May 15, 2010 That's because most "market" economists are frauds themselves -- they don't really support free markets -- and they don't want to draw attention to that fact. www.bretcahill.com |