Prev: An Elementary Proof of Fermat's 'Last Theorem'
Next: JSH: They lie a lot
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


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: An Elementary Proof of Fermat's 'Last Theorem'
Next: JSH: They lie a lot