Prev: Time, sequence, determinism
Next: 3x10^10 cm/sec uniquely linked to 10^500 (the end of Finiteness) #558 Correcting Math
From: Immortalist on 1 Apr 2010 20:51
If social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a
plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences, including:
anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, linguistics,
political science, and, in certain contexts, psychology and these are
considered "soft sciences" as opposed to the "hard sciences" of math
and physics, then why do some act as if economics were physics?

Does economics, like other soft sciences, suffer from "physics envy"
since it desires to use an empirical approach more akin to the
physical sciences than just another branch of the social sciences
weaker probability methods?

Can we attribute policy failures in economic advising to an uncritical
and unscientific propensity to imitate mathematical procedures used in
the physical sciences?

What about the many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked
positions that can influence other people's lives who are known for
arbitrarily using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as
vehicles to legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit
their remarks to matters relevant to their responsibilities; This
close relation of economic theory and practice with politics may shade
or distort the most unpretentious original tenets of economics, and is
often confused with specific social agendas and value systems?

But if in all science, hard or soft, a theory is an explanation; for
instance the theory of gravity where gravity is not a law of nature
but an explanation of observations; if you drop something, it's going
to fall; that's an observation: unsupported things fall; but you
explain that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the
mass of what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or
something, is attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of gravity?
But remember, a theory is an explanation, then what really is the
difference between hard and soft sciences if they are both hypothetico-
deductive models derived from inductive predicate logic?
From: Geode on 3 Apr 2010 16:14
On 2 abr, 01:51, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> If social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a
> plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences, including:
> anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, linguistics,
> political science, and, in certain contexts, psychology and these are
> considered "soft sciences" as opposed to the "hard sciences" of math
> and physics, then why do some act as if economics were physics?
>
> Does economics, like other soft sciences, suffer from "physics envy"
> since it desires to use an empirical approach more akin to the
> physical sciences than just another branch of the social sciences
> weaker probability methods?
>
> Can we attribute policy failures in economic advising to an uncritical
> and unscientific propensity to imitate mathematical procedures used in
> the physical sciences?
>
> What about the many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked
> positions that can influence other people's lives who are known for
> arbitrarily using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as
> vehicles to legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit
> their remarks to matters relevant to their responsibilities; This
> close relation of economic theory and practice with politics may shade
> or distort the most unpretentious original tenets of economics, and is
> often confused with specific social agendas and value systems?
>
> But if in all science, hard or soft, a theory is an explanation; for
> instance the theory of gravity where gravity is not a law of nature
> but an explanation of observations; if you drop something, it's going
> to fall; that's an observation: unsupported things fall; but you
> explain that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the
> mass of what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or
> something, is attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of gravity?
> But remember, a theory is an explanation, then what really is the
> difference between hard and soft sciences if they are both hypothetico-
> deductive models derived from inductive predicate logic?

Basic Physics, and Basic mathematics, are very neat Sciences. It is
when they go to the frontier that incertitudes start to plague the
mind. There is not any incertitude in finding the value of number pi,
or the mass of the Hydrogen proton or something like that. There some
incertitude in the question of neutrinos, and on other points. In the
case o maths, there is a moment, in which humans feel some
incertitude.

The case of economics is quite different, for it involves politics.
For the truth of one group is the lie of the other. So, there is not
any formal way to establish an objective analysis in economics. So,
the government tell us it is doing the right thing, to solve the
problems. While the opposition says the government is doing all
things wrong.
So, you can see that if one side presents an economic analysis, the
other side would declare that is wrong in the whole or in part. This
party can also tell, that the wrong parts or the analysis have a lot
more weight than the right parts. So, they reject this analysis.
So, you cannot ask for liars to establish a science of Economics.
What they are doing is fake analysis, that have to look as something
serious. As it were a science based on maths.

Geode.
..
From: Rod Speed on 3 Apr 2010 18:12
Geode wrote:
> On 2 abr, 01:51, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a
>> plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences, including:
>> anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, linguistics,
>> political science, and, in certain contexts, psychology and these are
>> considered "soft sciences" as opposed to the "hard sciences" of math
>> and physics, then why do some act as if economics were physics?
>>
>> Does economics, like other soft sciences, suffer from "physics envy"
>> since it desires to use an empirical approach more akin to the
>> physical sciences than just another branch of the social sciences
>> weaker probability methods?
>>
>> Can we attribute policy failures in economic advising to an
>> uncritical and unscientific propensity to imitate mathematical
>> procedures used in the physical sciences?
>>
>> What about the many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked
>> positions that can influence other people's lives who are known for
>> arbitrarily using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as
>> vehicles to legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit
>> their remarks to matters relevant to their responsibilities; This
>> close relation of economic theory and practice with politics may
>> shade or distort the most unpretentious original tenets of
>> economics, and is often confused with specific social agendas and
>> value systems?
>>
>> But if in all science, hard or soft, a theory is an explanation; for
>> instance the theory of gravity where gravity is not a law of nature
>> but an explanation of observations; if you drop something, it's going
>> to fall; that's an observation: unsupported things fall; but you
>> explain that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that
>> the mass of what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or
>> something, is attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of
>> gravity? But remember, a theory is an explanation, then what really
>> is the difference between hard and soft sciences if they are both
>> hypothetico- deductive models derived from inductive predicate logic?

> Basic Physics, and Basic mathematics, are very neat Sciences. It is
> when they go to the frontier that incertitudes start to plague the
> mind. There is not any incertitude in finding the value of number pi,
> or the mass of the Hydrogen proton or something like that. There some
> incertitude in the question of neutrinos, and on other points. In the
> case o maths, there is a moment, in which humans feel some
> incertitude.

> The case of economics is quite different, for it involves politics.

Yes.

> For the truth of one group is the lie of the other.

Its not that black and white. All but the most rabid rightists are
in favor of govt doing some stuff like the judiciary and cops and
the standing army, and the main differences are about just how
much govt should be doing, like whether it should get involved
in the provision of health care and education etc.

Now even the more rabid leftys arent mostly in favor
of govt doing the manufacturing of cars and houses etc.

> So, there is not any formal way to establish an objective analysis in economics.

Its more that when there is, like say with the state of the
economy, its much more complex than say newtonian physics.

> So, the government tell us it is doing the right thing, to solve the problems.

Hardly any of them are silly enough to claim that they can solve all problems.

> While the opposition says the government is doing all things wrong.

Only the most mindless opposition.

Obama for example did not oppose most of the measures that the
shrub took to attempt to avoid another great depression or worse.

> So, you can see that if one side presents an economic analysis,
> the other side would declare that is wrong in the whole or in part.

Its more complicated than that. And thats politics anyway, not economics.

> This party can also tell, that the wrong parts or the analysis have
> a lot more weight than the right parts. So, they reject this analysis.
> So, you cannot ask for liars to establish a science of Economics.
> What they are doing is fake analysis, that have to look as
> something serious. As it were a science based on maths.

Its more that they differ about what should be done, most
obviously with the most recent US health care funding changes etc.

And again, thats politics, not economics.


From: Ron Peterson on 4 Apr 2010 23:51
On Apr 1, 7:51 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> If social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a
> plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences, including:
> anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, linguistics,
> political science, and, in certain contexts, psychology and these are
> considered "soft sciences" as opposed to the "hard sciences" of math
> and physics, then why do some act as if economics were physics?

We divide our knowledge of the world into fields of study to make
things easier to grasp in our minds.

I don't like to classify math and logic (formal systems) as sciences
because they aren't based on the scientific method. In math or logic,
statements are true if and only if they are provable. Scientific
statements are never found to be true but may be shown to be false
through experiments and observation.

> Does economics, like other soft sciences, suffer from "physics envy"
> since it desires to use an empirical approach more akin to the
> physical sciences than just another branch of the social sciences
> weaker probability methods?

Physics and some other scientific fields don't suffer as much from
political or religious influence.

> Can we attribute policy failures in economic advising to an uncritical
> and unscientific propensity to imitate mathematical procedures used in
> the physical sciences?

That's hard to show because we can't make experiments with whole
economies.

> What about the many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked
> positions that can influence other people's lives who are known for
> arbitrarily using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as
> vehicles to legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit
> their remarks to matters relevant to their responsibilities; This
> close relation of economic theory and practice with politics may shade
> or distort the most unpretentious original tenets of economics, and is
> often confused with specific social agendas and value systems?

Selecting policymakers is the hard part. People elect policymakers,
but they have no way of knowing if the policymaker is able and willing
to make the correct policy. Medical doctors have a self-selection
system which seems to work well except for some exceptions and high
cost.

>...
> But remember, a theory is an explanation, then what really is the
> difference between hard and soft sciences if they are both hypothetico-
> deductive models derived from inductive predicate logic?

Scientific theories are models of a certain aspects of reality not
inductive predicate logic.

--
Ron
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Time, sequence, determinism
Next: 3x10^10 cm/sec uniquely linked to 10^500 (the end of Finiteness) #558 Correcting Math