It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology.
(That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.)
I'd be interested if you can back that up? (With non ideological sources, of course.)
Edit: Considering the numbers, there are going to be some true conspiracy theories... and mass hypnosis from unverifiable things like psychology (Freud, Jung, etc). The burden of proof is still on the one presenting the conspiracy theories.
Edit 2: And of course, some sciences are experimental and use the scientific method. Some are largely historical (palaeontology, economics, etc). That doesn't counter my point either.
That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.
Kind of like there have been hundreds of thousands of Freudian psychoanalysts (considered scientists) in the 20th century until now?
Or how people consider (and increasingly clinics embrace) homeopathists as doctors and scientists? With their own educational programs, journals and everything too.
In any case there's nothing special about many people working in a field that makes them automatically proper scientists.
To begin with, the term "science" is ambiguous.
It can refer to empirically or axiomatically verifiable, experimental, scientific-method following fields, which is what is actually "science" (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and whatever ad-hoc field of study one can come up with.
The first is sometimes called "hard sciences" to differentiate them from the more "lax" and "anything goes" ones.
Now, the second type could still be a productive (if informal) field of inquiry and argumentation and insight. I'm all for continental philosophy for example.
But it's not scientific in the way engineering or physics is. Not even close.
The "Academy of Science" in most countries includes philosophers for example. And they do get Ph.D degrees and everything. They never verify anything, and they can hold totally conflicting views and still be "valid" and well established. Would you consider them "scientists"?
If not, are you a conspiracy theorist?
It's naive to believe that the way a society names some practices is also revealing about the essence of those practices.
So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after?
That some sciences can't use the scientific method (do experiments etc) like some parts of geology, don't counter my point. [Edit: Unless your point really is that you dismiss palaeontology et al in an equal way, too?]
(Or are you arguing that 80% of most everything which aren't based on mathematical proofs are bad?)
Edit: This is an innocent question about getting references to strong claims that a science has 0 "scientific content". I know some people whose integrity and intelligence I trust, which later went the academic track in economics. That gave in total 4 down votes -- but still without a reference?
I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory.
Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility?
This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either?
This is an honest question.
(And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper".
Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others?
(I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.)
Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_.
You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists.
My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable?
(Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper.
(Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.)
Enough for me, bye.
Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science.
This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability).
Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point.
(The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.)
"Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end:
Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page.
...
Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively.
My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test.
So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?
The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?
This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:
"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."
Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...
I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.
Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater.
Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.
I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.
I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly.
History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles.
Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study.
Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation.
Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)
So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after?
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
> If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later.
You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
> should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic...
About your references:
* Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.)
* "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview:
"Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above"
Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-)
* Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.
You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
> To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
You can say the same for any research area.
> Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
You know yourself that you can find that for most fields. I know I've heard it for biochemistry (regarding over relying on computer modelling for evaluating molecules, a long time ago; I have no idea what people to do now).
It is normal and necessary introspection about what you are doing -- "Do we do the right things? Are we going in a good direction?"
I don't think conspiracy theory is the right word for it. The world isn't ever that neat :)
His statement, when you refine it appropriately (which is not always done in an online forum), only presupposes that most people of the field who are visible to the public are "either idiots, fanatics or crooks".
I wouldn't phrase it quite so strongly (and for what it's worth, the grandparent didn't either), but it's easy to see why that would happen. Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. So a lot of money is spent on trying to do so (virtually all of the so-called "think tanks"), much more and on a much more consistent basis than in any other science. So even from first principles, without any evidence, you have to logically expect economics to be worse than other sciences at delivering a rational truth.
As for evidence, I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"?
All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public.
> I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"?
Since no references, which I asked for, have been presented at all, that is not an interesting problem...
> the grandparent didn't [phrase it strongly] either
Uh, "scientific content in most economists is zero." is not strong?
> All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public.
Why do you assume that "alternative voices" are better than the research consensus of a field?
(Yes, I make myself intentionally stupid here. I realize the answer probably is because you like the alternative voices better...? :-) )
> Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy.
Certainly you'll find paid research in any field with policy influences. Smoking comes to mind. Please make it likely that most of the [economy] field is corrupt, as the GP argued?
There was no talk of "idiots and fanatics" in the comment you replied to, hence the "not phrase it so strongly" part.
Why do you assume that "alternative voices" are better than the research consensus of a field?
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion from my period of digging into that stuff ;-)
(And it's also not that all alternative voices are always better. It's that there are flaws in the economic research consensus that are clearly visible to an interested outsider who sees the alternative voices and listens to them equally.)
The clearest and most painful example of this is that in the face of close to a decade of extremely clear evidence (in the form of comparing the Eurozone to other advanced economies, mostly), most economists discussing fiscal matters still make no distinction between governments that are monetarily sovereign and those that aren't.
It should be natural to assume that there's likely a qualitative distinction to be made between governments that can go bankrupt and those that cannot - there might be reasons why that isn't so, but then one needs to make an argument.
So you get things like the once famous Reinhart & Rogoff paper about government debt ratios - which has been thoroughly discredited, but even the people doing the discrediting typically didn't point out the problem of ignoring monetary sovereignty.
Certainly you'll find paid research in any field with policy influences. Smoking comes to mind. Please make it likely that most of the [economy] field is corrupt, as the GP argued?
I assume you would assign the "smoking" issue to the field of medicine. Which percentage of research in medicine would you expect to be closely related to public policy? Which percentage in economics?
What you write there is interesting, you should have led with that. :-) Could you give me some pointers?
Coming from Sweden, we have a consensus culture. That makes it possible for the media and the politicians to whip up a frenzy and change the acceptable opinions. The point is, you don't have to dig so deep to find official lies. Quite a few of the whistle blowers are economists. I do believe a large subset in the profession have integrity.
> I assume you would assign the "smoking" issue to the field of medicine. Which percentage of research in medicine would you expect to be closely related to public policy? Which percentage in economics?
Let me put it like this -- Sweden recently got a professor (instated by the government) in the state defence research arm, specialized in gender. He tends to write articles supporting whatever the government likes... :-)
Regarding research -- smoking was not public policy, but purely company interests. All of health questions regarding choices of medicine, treatments and diet are interesting to lots of interest groups. (And age verification of young people was a big thing in Sweden regarding the immigration -- the international research consensus was thrown out...)
The national economy researchers are much fewer. But there are also quite a variation internationally on how politically influenced academics are. Also, what is sensitive in some countries can be researched in others with e.g. a different infrastructure.
In my native Sweden, the health research is probably more interesting to influence than the economic departments at universities. The political parties are interested in the economists. The big corporations don't really care, they talk to the parties directly. (Corporatism, yes..)
> There was no talk of "idiots and fanatics" in the comment you replied to, hence the "not phrase it so strongly" part.
The statement "scientific content in most economists is zero" needs that the practitioners are either idiots, crooks or fanatics.
But sure, I'll back down here. A group of people studying a subject without any feedback and internal tests can go crazy, obviously. coldtea used the example Freudians. You might use post modernists too -- any group with a common preconceived opinion about how the world works might become a cult.
There is just to much precedent in the crazier part of academia for my argument.
Still, to dismiss an old field of research needs damn good support.
Comments
It is a classic conspiracy theory to say that most of a scientific field is a fraud from (political) ideology.
(That is, your statement presupposes most people of the field are either idiots, fanatics or crooks.)
I'd be interested if you can back that up? (With non ideological sources, of course.)
Edit: Considering the numbers, there are going to be some true conspiracy theories... and mass hypnosis from unverifiable things like psychology (Freud, Jung, etc). The burden of proof is still on the one presenting the conspiracy theories.
Edit 2: And of course, some sciences are experimental and use the scientific method. Some are largely historical (palaeontology, economics, etc). That doesn't counter my point either.
Kind of like there have been hundreds of thousands of Freudian psychoanalysts (considered scientists) in the 20th century until now?
Or how people consider (and increasingly clinics embrace) homeopathists as doctors and scientists? With their own educational programs, journals and everything too.
In any case there's nothing special about many people working in a field that makes them automatically proper scientists.
To begin with, the term "science" is ambiguous.
It can refer to empirically or axiomatically verifiable, experimental, scientific-method following fields, which is what is actually "science" (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and whatever ad-hoc field of study one can come up with.
The first is sometimes called "hard sciences" to differentiate them from the more "lax" and "anything goes" ones.
Now, the second type could still be a productive (if informal) field of inquiry and argumentation and insight. I'm all for continental philosophy for example.
But it's not scientific in the way engineering or physics is. Not even close.
The "Academy of Science" in most countries includes philosophers for example. And they do get Ph.D degrees and everything. They never verify anything, and they can hold totally conflicting views and still be "valid" and well established. Would you consider them "scientists"?
If not, are you a conspiracy theorist?
It's naive to believe that the way a society names some practices is also revealing about the essence of those practices.
So you lack references (without an ideological angle) that dismiss economics as a science -- which I asked after?
That some sciences can't use the scientific method (do experiments etc) like some parts of geology, don't counter my point. [Edit: Unless your point really is that you dismiss palaeontology et al in an equal way, too?]
(Or are you arguing that 80% of most everything which aren't based on mathematical proofs are bad?)
Edit: This is an innocent question about getting references to strong claims that a science has 0 "scientific content". I know some people whose integrity and intelligence I trust, which later went the academic track in economics. That gave in total 4 down votes -- but still without a reference?
I have no references but common sense. Popper gave the best tool I know to differentiate between proper science and quackery, namely falsification. In order to a theory to be falsifiable, there must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. For example, if I see that the newtonian equation for force, acceleration and mass (F = ma) does not hold, in some circumstances, I am able to falsify the theory.
Now, maybe the most fundamental assumtion of economics is that people are utility maximizers. I see no way how this can be falsified. How can I make a choice that proves I was not maximizing my utility?
This, in itself, is enough for me to be confident that economics is not (yet) a proper science, but a bastard of ideology and mathematics.
Again, is it then also reasonable to dismiss palaeontology as having 0 "scientific content", since it can't use the scientific method either?
This is an honest question.
(And I am no economist, but afaik, the economists note that "homo economicus" is a simplification. Most every science use simplified models, especially in the first university courses.)
I know nothing about palaeontology. Can you give an example of unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology?
Yes, classical physics is a simplification, but it is a _falsifiable_ simplification, unlike the utility maximizer.
Note that falsifiability has nothing to do with making experiments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Experiments are generally needed to "falsify" claims in physics, chemistry etc. Those are experimental sciences, which can use the scientific method. Mathematics et al can falsify "on paper".
Palaeontology, economics and many other sciences can't do either. Why can you dismiss one out of hand, but not the others?
(I have written this quite obvious point 3-4 times now.)
Edit: Your own wikipedia reference have a link to the "scientific method". You should read it. Well worth the trouble. It is arguable the basis for most everything we know about the world.
To be honest, I do not know what you mean by scientific method and I have not made any claims about scientific method. I have made a distinction based falsifiability. Falsifiability does not need experiments, but _observations_.
You have written your "obvious" point now a few times, but you have not written a single unfalsifiable claim of palaeontology or any of the many other sciences you claim that exists.
My hypothesis is simple, _anything_ that claims being a science but makes unfalsifiable claims, is quackery. You see, this hypothesis itself is falsifiable, all you need to make is give a single unfalsifiable claim of a respectful science to prove this hypothesis false. So can you give _one_ example of palaeontology that is unfalsifiable?
(Mathematics does not claim to be a science in popperian sense.)
It is good to look up the scientific method before arguing about Popper.
(Hint: It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page. Also, your own link had the term as a related link.)
Enough for me, bye.
Edit: Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
I am not quite sure why you want to stick with the scientific method. I brought one very specific idea of Popper, falsification, that I think is relatively ideologue free and very useful to separate science from pseudoscience. And which happens to say that there are fundamental parts of economics that remind much more pseudoscience than proper science.
This discussion is _extremely_ easy to bring forward. All you need to do is to tell _one_ properly scientific theory outside economics that is not falsifiable. If you can't do that, we can hopefully agree that economics is one of the rare species that seem to have some (questionable) scientific credibility without too strong foundation on falsifiable thinking.
How can you have an opinion on that, after writing that you don't know what it is -- despite talking about Popper...?
I told you I didn't need that for my argument.
Bye.
"Sceintific method" and falsifiability are not the same. Popper's criterion does not even mention this method and for all I know this is something only people in the US learn (on the other hand, many Americans do not seem to be familiar with the concept of falsifiability).
Paleontology as a whole could not possibly be falsified but a paleontological theory could. E.g. if a paleontologist claimed that certain species lived in a certain period then discovery of a fossil for these species but dated outside this period would falsify such a claim.
Re your point about Palaeontology -- the same goes for economics (and much of astrophysics, for that matter). Which was my point.
(The rest isn't relevant for my point and I am not really an expert. So just post a reference if I'm totally wrong. Popper isn't the last word in the philosophy of science anymore, either.)
"Scientific method" only discussed in US and not relevant to Popper? :-) As I wrote to Beefield, in the end:
Hint: [The scientific method] is in the first sentence of the second paragraph on Popper's wikipedia page.
...
Another hint, Popper was amongst others professor of "logic and scientific method" at the University of London. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page. In short, you argue Popper without understanding what Popper argued about.
Sorry, I don't see how it does. Could you show an example of a falsifiable economic theory? Thanks for the hint by the way, but it looks like a non sequitur to me. How does it follow that I don't know something from the Popper's job title?
To be fair, there are falsifiable economic theories. For example some theories regarding market failures, like the adverse selection in asymmetrical information markets[1]. We _could_ observe that there is a market that fulfills the criteria for market of lemons, but prices lemons and cherries distinctively.
My issue with economics is that some of the deep core assumptions (utility maximization, strong form of efficient markets etc.) violate so egregiously the falsifiability test.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
So you give up on my point regarding experimental sciences (which was what Popper was about) and the rest -- like economy, palaeontology etc?
The scientific method is what is used by the experimental ("hard") sciences. Do you really not know this?
This is the start of the second paragraph of Popper's wikipedia page, defining what he wrote about:
"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. ..."
Popper even was a professor of logic and the scientific method...
I am sorry, I have to soon assume I'm being trolled here.
Edit: You can e.g. also see the discussion of Popper's work here, where it is also discussed explicitly that he argues about how the scientific method works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno
Thanks, judging by your refusal to answer my question you do seem to understand that your position is indefensible.
You ignored that I argued your questions about Popper is not relevant for my point [edit: if nothing else, that argument also applies to astrophysics, archaeology, history, etc], so your dismissal here forces me to dismiss you as a serious debater.
Enough.
Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.
I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.
I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.
If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly.
History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles.
Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.
Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study.
Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation.
Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)
That's the best you could deduce from my comment?
For starters, given the main claim I made (that economics is not a science), and considering that whether is true or false is under question, the last thing one could logically ask for, regarding that, would be citations.
For who would make those?
Surely not physicists or mathematicians, etc. (since it's not their job). And surely not economists for it IS their job.
If my claim was true, economists admitting it would be like homeopathists or freudian psychoanalysts saying their fields are non-scientific. It just ain't gonna happen, or it will be marginal at best.
Ever more profoundly though, should we actually evaluate arguments, or only think pre-made thoughts coming to us by way of citations?
Because the latter is not scientific either -- one needs to evaluate citations too. And no, peer review is not infallible in that either (in case one thinks citations are some golden truth they can always accept because they're peer reviewed. In fact a good majority of papers even in hard sciences have been found in meta-studies to be reproducible and others plain wrong (the so-called reproducability crisis).
Assuming it it the same and worse in economics, which is not a hard science, already makes most of my point.
That said, here are some sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Dismal-Science-Economist-Undermines-C... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rules-Rights-Wrongs-Science... https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Modern-Economics-Science-Ideol... https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Mathematical-Politics-Dimin...
You do realize that is how the creationists argue about the biology academics? :-(
The problem is that to show something completely wrong (a year or two ago, you'd probably have linked to Picketty?) is a good way to make a career.
If you want to make a better argument for your position, go to post modernists or some other of the political sciences which generally have disappeared ten years later.
You could make a point, which I'd agree with, that your position is stronger than a conspiracy theory, there are too many precedents. But to dismiss a field of research, you really need better support.
Far outside our areas, that is a good heuristic...
About your references:
* Stephen A. Marglin seems to argue that the small society might be better. It is an interesting and important point. E.g. communism works OK in a village, but not for larger areas. Afaik, he don't present an alternative? (No one thinks the present democracy or capitalism is perfect, we just haven't found anything better.)
* "The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology?" got good reviews, but only by five readers. This seems to be a good overview:
"Is [economy] a.) dangerous mathematical formalism, b.) free market ideology, or c.) a vital guide to practical action? The correct answer, he concludes, is d.) all of the above"
Well, that isn't exactly controversial, is it? :-)
* Dani Rodrik seems to argue about when economy is a useful tool? It don't support that zero scientific content claim, either.
You do realize that I don't care who else argues something in a particular way in another domain, as long as an argument is correct in another domain!
Not really. To piss on your own field, is a good way to be considered a pariah, a conspiracy theorist, a nut job etc. Not many grants coming to the self-doubting economist, and policy advisor positions either.
Like self-deprecating citations from practitioners in the field?
(Even if expecting that is illogical to begin with -- since economics is what puts food on their table --, you'd be surprised how many economists have written self-deprecating critiques about economics)
You can say the same for any research area.
You know yourself that you can find that for most fields. I know I've heard it for biochemistry (regarding over relying on computer modelling for evaluating molecules, a long time ago; I have no idea what people to do now).
It is normal and necessary introspection about what you are doing -- "Do we do the right things? Are we going in a good direction?"
I don't think conspiracy theory is the right word for it. The world isn't ever that neat :)
His statement, when you refine it appropriately (which is not always done in an online forum), only presupposes that most people of the field who are visible to the public are "either idiots, fanatics or crooks".
I wouldn't phrase it quite so strongly (and for what it's worth, the grandparent didn't either), but it's easy to see why that would happen. Since economics is mostly about money, even slightly bending the public's perception on what scientific economic consensus is can have an extreme payoff via influencing public policy. So a lot of money is spent on trying to do so (virtually all of the so-called "think tanks"), much more and on a much more consistent basis than in any other science. So even from first principles, without any evidence, you have to logically expect economics to be worse than other sciences at delivering a rational truth.
As for evidence, I wonder what you would even accept as a "non-ideological source"?
All that said, it's not like the economics profession is an entirely lost cause. There are people like Dean Baker and James Galbraith who manage to occasionally bring alternative voices to the public.
Since no references, which I asked for, have been presented at all, that is not an interesting problem...
Uh, "scientific content in most economists is zero." is not strong?
Why do you assume that "alternative voices" are better than the research consensus of a field?
(Yes, I make myself intentionally stupid here. I realize the answer probably is because you like the alternative voices better...? :-) )
Certainly you'll find paid research in any field with policy influences. Smoking comes to mind. Please make it likely that most of the [economy] field is corrupt, as the GP argued?
There was no talk of "idiots and fanatics" in the comment you replied to, hence the "not phrase it so strongly" part.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion from my period of digging into that stuff ;-)
(And it's also not that all alternative voices are always better. It's that there are flaws in the economic research consensus that are clearly visible to an interested outsider who sees the alternative voices and listens to them equally.)
The clearest and most painful example of this is that in the face of close to a decade of extremely clear evidence (in the form of comparing the Eurozone to other advanced economies, mostly), most economists discussing fiscal matters still make no distinction between governments that are monetarily sovereign and those that aren't.
It should be natural to assume that there's likely a qualitative distinction to be made between governments that can go bankrupt and those that cannot - there might be reasons why that isn't so, but then one needs to make an argument.
So you get things like the once famous Reinhart & Rogoff paper about government debt ratios - which has been thoroughly discredited, but even the people doing the discrediting typically didn't point out the problem of ignoring monetary sovereignty.
I assume you would assign the "smoking" issue to the field of medicine. Which percentage of research in medicine would you expect to be closely related to public policy? Which percentage in economics?
What you write there is interesting, you should have led with that. :-) Could you give me some pointers?
Coming from Sweden, we have a consensus culture. That makes it possible for the media and the politicians to whip up a frenzy and change the acceptable opinions. The point is, you don't have to dig so deep to find official lies. Quite a few of the whistle blowers are economists. I do believe a large subset in the profession have integrity.
Let me put it like this -- Sweden recently got a professor (instated by the government) in the state defence research arm, specialized in gender. He tends to write articles supporting whatever the government likes... :-)
Regarding research -- smoking was not public policy, but purely company interests. All of health questions regarding choices of medicine, treatments and diet are interesting to lots of interest groups. (And age verification of young people was a big thing in Sweden regarding the immigration -- the international research consensus was thrown out...)
The national economy researchers are much fewer. But there are also quite a variation internationally on how politically influenced academics are. Also, what is sensitive in some countries can be researched in others with e.g. a different infrastructure.
In my native Sweden, the health research is probably more interesting to influence than the economic departments at universities. The political parties are interested in the economists. The big corporations don't really care, they talk to the parties directly. (Corporatism, yes..)
The statement "scientific content in most economists is zero" needs that the practitioners are either idiots, crooks or fanatics.
But sure, I'll back down here. A group of people studying a subject without any feedback and internal tests can go crazy, obviously. coldtea used the example Freudians. You might use post modernists too -- any group with a common preconceived opinion about how the world works might become a cult.
There is just to much precedent in the crazier part of academia for my argument.
Still, to dismiss an old field of research needs damn good support.