[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/sci/ - Science & Math

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:01 UTC+1 No.6658931 Report

Is economics (or any branch of it) a science? Why or why not?
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:09 UTC+1 No.6658960 Report

>>6658931
It's the strongest and most respected social science. It is not a hard or formal science, like physics or mathematics.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:12 UTC+1 No.6658967 Report

>>6658931
econometrics - i guess
everything else, not really
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:12 UTC+1 No.6658968 Report

Science is a process not the results it generates
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:13 UTC+1 No.6658971 Report

>>6658960
No.
It's based on the notion that human nature, greed especially, is inbuild from birth and cannot be changed.
There are plenty of examples for the opposite, that nurture not nature is what guides people.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:13 UTC+1 No.6658973 Report

>>6658931
It's the hardest social science.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:18 UTC+1 No.6658985 Report

>>6658973
idk about that, certainly it has more math than most social sciences but when we talk about theoretical linguistics (i.e. semantics & syntax-semantics interfaces) that's pretty foundations-of-mathematics-level difficulty right there
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:18 UTC+1 No.6658987 Report

>>6658971
Fucking kek. This is precisely the worst misinterpretation of Economics I've heard, and I say that as a Philosophy major. Economics is NOT a normative theory; it has no bearing on what is morally good or bad. Additionally, Greed /=/ Self-interest. My professor had to stress this nearly everyday because some people simply don't understand.

It's like using Einstein's relativity to justify moral relativism. They're just not the same, man.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:20 UTC+1 No.6658990 Report

>>6658971
I could be acting in my self-interest when I help others because of the utility which I receive from the act. Economics is all just about money.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:22 UTC+1 No.6658997 Report

>>6658990
is not all*
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:23 UTC+1 No.6659000 Report

>>6658985
I concede the point.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:23 UTC+1 No.6659001 Report

>>6658967
This.
Do they have something like peer-review or something?
I know they publish papers... But is it really anything else than opinion based debate?
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:24 UTC+1 No.6659005 Report

>>6659000
victory on the internet
the rarest jewel of them all
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:25 UTC+1 No.6659007 Report

>>6658990
>Economics is all just about money.
Wh... what?
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:26 UTC+1 No.6659014 Report

>>6658931

Economists make observations and then models to try to describe the observations and predict future behavior. That's the scientific method.

If the models are bad, that's another issue.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)22:26 UTC+1 No.6659017 Report

>>6659007
>Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)17:22:26 No.6658997?
>>>6658990 (You)
>is not all*
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)23:08 UTC+1 No.6659112 Report

>>6658931
At best it is
When like they like to measure stuff and stuff
The armchair stuff isn't so much
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)23:12 UTC+1 No.6659126 Report

>>6658971
>It's based on the notion that human nature, greed especially, is inbuild from birth and cannot be changed.

what.
that's not true, Anon. Stop spreading bullshit.
>>
Anonymous 07/22/14(Tue)23:39 UTC+1 No.6659180 Report

Economics student here, this is what we do:

>We observe real world data.
>We synthetize the data with Statistics, Maths, etc.
>We notice certain behaviours in these data.
>We make models that try to explain this behaviour, which is the fun part, considering already contrasted data.
>We publish such models and others review them and review them again and discuss why it's great or where it could fail.
>They are accepted only if after many real world observations you can demonstrate their veracity or you complete them even more.
>Until then these models are just mere theories.
>With the knowledge acquired, a branch of Economics tries to predict future behaviours. (Notice this is NOT what Economics is all about, it's just a part of it, and often lacks enough information because our models are always to simple in comparison to the complexity of reality. So no, Economists aren't oracles)
>We must ensure that all data has been correctlly considered and add more and more complexity to models so they reflect in a major % how reality actually is.

Consider there is no morality on this. And no Politics.
Consider every new knowledge comes from contrasted data.
Consider that the observational process and contrast process are very slow, beause we often analyze large amounts of people during large amounts of time. We don't have "labs" like other sciences (laws don't allow that!)
Ignore TV Economics shows, they are more about Politics than science because their purpose is simply to move the masses to the direction they want.
Consider that many findings will never see the light, because they are founded by private parties who will prefer to secretely take advantage of them isntead of getting a patent.

Now you tell me if you consider it scientific method.
There is Observation -> Theory -> Contrast and a shit ton of maths everywhere.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)00:58 UTC+1 No.6659329 Report

>>6658931
Not even a little bit.

It is not a science because money isn't real. Resource management by the few, to define its value for the many who don't have is basically playing a game with loaded dice. Rigged accounting is not a science except in the sense that it has been rehashed with buzzwords so well that even scientists can't fully comprehend it.

You could get on a conspiracy theorist website and understand more about the federal reserve and the true nature of economics with its planned obsolescence than you ever could in an academic institution where academic data is privately owned... classified from the public, basically.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)01:01 UTC+1 No.6659332 Report

economics is bullshit.

They use it someone how justify capitalism, but if capitalism would somehow actually fulfill everyone's needs( the point of an economy) then it would actually collapse. It requires demand to work.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)01:07 UTC+1 No.6659338 Report

Economics is politically motivated opinion mixed with sophistry.
No experimental evidence because no control group.
No reproducible results.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)16:40 UTC+1 No.6660425 Report

Economics is a humanistic subject. It is not a hard science, and quite frankly, the modern neoclassical orthodoxy has been proven to be-a-shit one too many times. Don't even get me started on keynesianism or marxian economics. Hah. As if marxian economics is still viable in any sense at all. Austrian economics is the only school that (even if it says prediction is shit) predicts the most.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)16:47 UTC+1 No.6660442 Report

>>6659180
>>6659180
>predict future behaviours. (Notice this is NOT what Economics is all about
>claims it is science

Nope
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)16:54 UTC+1 No.6660455 Report

>>6658931
its basically statistics with some psychology and sociology mixed in
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)16:55 UTC+1 No.6660458 Report

>>6659329

Nutjob libertarian detected.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)17:00 UTC+1 No.6660466 Report

>>6659332

The starting point of economics is that what we demand always exceeds...oh fuck it

good for you, random retard on the internet, you've figured it all out haven't you. Capitalism destroyed with one declaration
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)17:03 UTC+1 No.6660473 Report

>>6660425

>Austrian economics is the only school that (even if it says prediction is shit) predicts the most.

Still waiting for hyperinflation.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)17:16 UTC+1 No.6660488 Report

>>6659180
This is a good explanation.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)17:39 UTC+1 No.6660530 Report

>>6658931
It's a science when they do experiments with controls to determine causality. Otherwise it's futile hand waving about a chaotic system.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)17:52 UTC+1 No.6660550 Report

>>6660473
Hyperinflation was an absurd "prediction" because the US dollar is based on oil. Try harder please.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)18:40 UTC+1 No.6660605 Report

>>6660550

Inflation has been low or even negative in all the advanced economies since the start of the Great Recession.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)05:31 UTC+1 No.6661686 Report

>>6658931

Probably Actuarial Math and Econometrics, but thats because Statistics means never saying you're certain and the models can be reproduced. Other than that not really, aside from some trends economics relies on predicting human behavior and human behavior is not always rational or reproducible.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)05:40 UTC+1 No.6661705 Report

>>6659180
its not that you dont use the "scientific method" and math, its that the results fail to generalize (so are pretty much useless)
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)05:43 UTC+1 No.6661711 Report

>>6659338

Me thinks you have political economy and media confused with macroeconomics.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)05:48 UTC+1 No.6661720 Report

Unfortunately, there is no way to test models - until they blow the fuck up because of a real world test (I'm looking at you real business cycle). You can build macro models which describe effectively what has happened, and gain 0 insight of what may happen. Econ exists in a valley between philosophy and good science, with maths shoved in every possible orifice of econ.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)06:09 UTC+1 No.6661757 Report

>>6659180

>Consider there is no morality on this. And no Politics.


no one is this fucking dumb
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)06:19 UTC+1 No.6661775 Report

>>6658931
no, economics is just applied sociology which is already pretty far down the chain.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)09:10 UTC+1 No.6662037 Report

>>6659180
Here's what you actually do
You go to the university or whatever, then you put on your fedoras and then you go to the debate hall to debate with just common sense ("surely X...") on the subject of Keynes vs. Hayek.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)09:15 UTC+1 No.6662042 Report

>>6658931
Not science but I did Quantitative Finance which is basically just stats on steroids after mechanical engineering. I went there thinking I was gonna demolish people with my science background. Everyone there also had a science background. Basically you determine trends and the likes to figure out what happens next. You grab people's money and you grab a bunch of stocks you think might be profitable based on your research. You compile it and you invest that money into those companies in the hopes that you get rich. Many people do get rich by the way.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)09:21 UTC+1 No.6662047 Report

>>6658987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_economics
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.