If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted determine so much in society?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 401.8: Time As Probable Causation/Influence via Logistic Differential Equation
Next: Race and Empathy Matter on Neural Level
From: Joubert on 16 Jul 2010 10:16 > Before the GFC happened. some eminent mathematicians I know were so > much in awe and praise of the mathematical models underlying credit > derivatives. "They are so complex, they surpass even general > relativity. Hardly anyone knows how they work". Don't make fun of yourself with these ridiculous pop claims.
From: Rod Speed on 16 Jul 2010 14:31 John Stafford wrote: > In article <i1ok791s32(a)news2.newsguy.com>, > Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0500, John Stafford wrote: >> >>> 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 those in academe think economics is not a science then it is small >> wonder we are producing such poor economists. > > Show me how economics is a science. It does at least attempt to consider the evidence for the most basic stuff like whether Keynesian deficit spending does work in some circumstances etc. Its a lot harder to do than with say newtonian physics tho.
From: Ron Peterson on 16 Jul 2010 19:44 On Jul 16, 6:00 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > Show me how economics is a science. Economists construct models of society that deals with trade, production, labor, and services. This would be considered an hypothesis. The hypothesis can be tested against recruited subjects or observations of society. -- Ron
From: Arindam Banerjee on 18 Jul 2010 04:57 On Jul 18, 2:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:49:23 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Jul 16, 5:00 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:43:54 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> > On Jul 16, 1:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0500, John Stafford wrote: > >> >> > In article > >> >> > <c535c1d7-c47a-4f44- > > a4fb-5e85dc7d1...(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > >> >> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(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 those in academe think economics is not a science then it is > >> >> small wonder we are producing such poor economists. > > >> >> > If someone wants a laugh, look to the title Political Science! > > >> >> Political economy is about rules of order that produce the most > >> >> prosperous middle class. That is a social science. > > >> >> -- > >> >> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" > >> >> --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 > > >> > Economics is 10% dogma, 10% fraud and 80% politics, all wrapped up in > >> > murky maths geared to provide "scientific" results of the payer's > >> > choosing. Its most reputable relation is astrology, less reputable > >> > ones include voodoo (Bush called Reagonomics voodoo economics, was he > >> > right?). > > >> First principles: > > >> 1. Man seeks to satisfy his needs and desires with as little > >> discomfort to himself as possible. > > > Doesn't explain lots of things for lots of men (and women), but correct > > for the dull majority. Hoewever the majority amounts to maintaining the > > status quo, the minority takes things front or back. > > >> 2. There really aren't in other first principles. > > > So look at it much more carefully, for it is wrong. > > I've looked at it for a very long time. And it is the fundamental > proposition of all _real_ economics. There are other things that matter > to people. But those things have nothing to do with economics. Define economics, then.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 18 Jul 2010 22:56
On Jul 19, 8:50 am, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:57:44 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:49:23 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> > On Jul 16, 5:00 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:43:54 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> >> > On Jul 16, 1:38 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0500, John Stafford wrote: > >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> > <c535c1d7-c47a-4f44- > > >> a4fb-5e85dc7d1...(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(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 those in academe think economics is not a science then it is > >> >> >> small wonder we are producing such poor economists. > > >> >> >> > If someone wants a laugh, look to the title Political Science! > > >> >> >> Political economy is about rules of order that produce the most > >> >> >> prosperous middle class. That is a social science. > > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" > >> >> >> --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 > > >> >> > Economics is 10% dogma, 10% fraud and 80% politics, all wrapped up > >> >> > in murky maths geared to provide "scientific" results of the > >> >> > payer's choosing. Its most reputable relation is astrology, less > >> >> > reputable ones include voodoo (Bush called Reagonomics voodoo > >> >> > economics, was he right?). > > >> >> First principles: > > >> >> 1. Man seeks to satisfy his needs and desires with as little > >> >> discomfort to himself as possible. > > >> > Doesn't explain lots of things for lots of men (and women), but > >> > correct for the dull majority. Hoewever the majority amounts to > >> > maintaining the status quo, the minority takes things front or back. > > >> >> 2. There really aren't in other first principles. > > >> > So look at it much more carefully, for it is wrong. > > >> I've looked at it for a very long time. And it is the fundamental > >> proposition of all _real_ economics. There are other things that > >> matter to people. But those things have nothing to do with economics. > > > Define economics, then. > > The formulation of societal rules that maximize material well being. Since for me, economics means whatever it takes to determine the price of a saleable commodity, we cannot argue any more. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |