If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it betrusted determine so much in society?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: What is the difference between a value judgment and a fact (description vs prescription)
Next: A different interpretation for set theory
From: Michael Coburn on 15 Jul 2010 23:38 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. > 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
From: Michael Coburn on 18 Jul 2010 18:50 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. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Michael Coburn on 18 Jul 2010 23:30
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:56:53 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > 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. \ I was never "arguing". It is what it is. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60 |