R&D vs Economists, death struggle extraordinaire

Sparks

But my point, in general, that if you put those little blue crystals we were given in JC Chemistry in water and put them over a Bunsen tomorrow, they'll do the exact same thing as they will today. This does not apply to something like economics. Yes, I know that my example is too simplified and that modern science is not as accepted fact and so on; but the logic is perfectly applicable.

Actually your logic is badly faulty. The science behind the blue crystals is not what they'll do; that is a fact of nature. The science is explaining what's going on, why it's going on, and maybe predicting what'll happen next, and of course that will change as we learn more about the process. Economics has exactly the same setup. Economies run, that's a fact. They either fail or succeed, it has nothing to do with economic theory, which is an explaination of why they succeed or fail, and how to make them succeed.

Also, physics is not being proven wrong every year as such. We don't throw everything out with the postulation of a new theory. Newton's theory fit realtiy better than that which came before him; Einstein's theory fit better than Newton's; and so on. It's a case of successive approximation, not trial and error. You'll note that we still teach Newton in schools. Are his equations wrong? Absolutely, yes. But they were so good an estimate that in any situation you are likely to personally encounter (unless you habitually calculate and then measure the orbit of Mercury), they are indistinguishable from the real values. Until you get to relativistic speeds or quantum scales, Newton and Einstein's maths give the same results.

Economics, on the other hand, seems to progress more by trial and error, discarding theories and replacing them completely, than by successive approximations to an optimal theory. That's not science, that's just guesstimation.

One might said that the field of medicine is more important than economics, but medicine cannot properly be delievered without a viable economic system in place.

Ha! You can argue all you like; without engineers, you'll be arguing while starving, naked and ill in a cave somewhere.

Thirdfox

Imagine a world without lawyers! *shudders*

cuckoo

Angry Banana wrote:

...
So what am I trying to say? I suppose it's something along the lines of "trust us". Freedom Instituters call me "Comrade"; the PD's say I'm "definitely in the socialist wing of FG"; [strike]Europerson calls me "mother";[/strike] and yet I'm certainly to the right of most people in terms of how equity should be achieved in an economy - as are most economists. Maybe we're just frustrated that we don't get to play a bigger role in such an important field .

I can't trust you because i can't understand your prose.

I'm being honest here, the convulted sentences have me completely lost.

europerson

Angry Banana wrote:

[strike]Europerson calls me "mother";[/strike]

I wish to point out that that's an in-joke between myself, Angry Banana and b.ie curious. Don't take anything literal from that.

Pet

****, I completely missed a great zing opportunity. Oh well, you can't win 'em all Ronan.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Angry Banana wrote:

However economics is, in my opinion, the most important science.

Wow, you totally don't come across as arrogant at all.

Angry Banana wrote:

...it was certainly someone more known to the public at large than Goddard, who I've never heard of...

Oh dear ;_; *aghast*

Sparks

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

Oh dear ;_; *aghast*

In fairness, it isn't exactly common knowlege. I wouldn't expect, for example, a medical doctor to know who the american father of rocket science was.

The "The point was to establish that what scientists agree on are, generally, not questioned by the public. This is not the case with what economists agree on." quote though, that's a bit more off, and has been ever since Oppenheimer.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Sparks wrote:

Economics, on the other hand, seems to progress more by trial and error, discarding theories and replacing them completely, than by successive approximations to an optimal theory. That's not science, that's just guesstimation.

lol - so wrong its not even funny...

Economics is a vast collection of theories, some are known with reasonable confidence and there is little questioning of them. The economics theories that are discussed in public are in areas of economics that have competing theories. This gives the impression of economists being unable to agree with each other - quite untrue in many cases.

It is true to say that economists sometimes reject existing theories in favour of new theories. But, this is not guesstimation; this is how research progresses efficiently in every single research area in the world.

It is the essence of Thomas Kuhn's "competing paradigms" and Imre Lakatos's "research program" philosophies on theory development. BTW these research philosophies come from SCIENCE research philosophers.

gilroyb

Sparks I think you're over simplifying certain aspects of economics, or over complicating certain aspects of physics.

If a physicist tests a theory and it seems to have some explanatory power, then further testing can prove if indeed it does account for the behaviour it is intended to model. If an economist comes up with a theory to explain a certain event, it cannot be entirely proved or disproved by further testing. The economy may look the same, but there are a huge range of both known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. It's a terribly simplistic (and probably inaccurate) example, but think of trying to calculate a value for gravity without being able to tell if you're still on the same planet as the last time you took your measurements, as well as not having a clue whether or not Mars has moved in next door for a summer break. You're initial theory may be correct but circumstances have changed, or you might be totally wrong but something unseen is actually causing facts to go along with your theory.

I approach economics as a tool of politics (not political science), and policy formation, not as a complete science in itself. John Nash said, (paraphrasing here), if a body of knowledge puts science on the end of its name, then it's most likely not a science, if it doesn't then it may well be. That said, I don't think economics is the same as a natural science, nor should it be.

Time Magazine

Sparks wrote:

Actually your logic is badly faulty. The science behind the blue crystals is not what they'll do; that is a fact of nature. The science is explaining what's going on, why it's going on, and maybe predicting what'll happen next, and of course that will change as we learn more about the process. Economics has exactly the same setup. Economies run, that's a fact. They either fail or succeed, it has nothing to do with economic theory, which is an explaination of why they succeed or fail, and how to make them succeed.

Ah know ye all need to lose your pedant hats. What's more a more definite (and thus non-debateable) subject: economics or physics? There is a far greater standard deviation in how economics run than in how crystals dissolve into water. You cannot argue against that point, it's blatantly obvious. Nobody can definitively state what was the most important factor in the creation of the Celtic Tiger, nor accurately approximate coefficients for the proportion of their importance or anything like that. You cannot assume that the factors that may have led to it will lead to it again in another country. You can assume, however, that the sun will rise at about the same time in England as it will in Dublin. Think analgously, g'wan, I dare you.

Economics, on the other hand, seems to progress more by trial and error, discarding theories and replacing them completely, than by successive approximations to an optimal theory. That's not science, that's just guesstimation.

That's so wrong...

Can you give any example of this? Economics as an academic study only began really with Smith, and even then could hardly be classed as anymore than a thought experiment, noting the effects of supply and demand and what not. It was only really around the time of Ricardo et al that it took ground, and it hardly even existed truly until Keynes. Prior to Keynes the only theories were about free trade and so on, and much of these are still true. This year, in SF macroeconomics, we spent about a half of the course learning about Keynes' macroeconomic model that is still very applicable to the world in the short- to medium-run. In fact it's so accurate at doing what it does it provides half of the AS-AD model - the standard macroeconomic framework of an economy. Similarly, Keynes' macroeconomy equation (Income = Consumption + Investment + Govt +- Trade) is perfectly right.

Since c.1970 economics has proven much of its theory, not discarded it. Rather with empirical evidence on a mass scale (not previously possible) we can tweak what we knew for actual coefficients than variables. That's all. Calling it guesstimation is such tripe! Edit: I see Roundtower soundly rounded you on that one now.

Ha! You can argue all you like; without engineers, you'll be arguing while starving, naked and ill in a cave somewhere.

I'd like to see you finance anything without economics . And for God's sake, the engineers of Ireland have nothing to boast about!

Cuckoo wrote:

I can't trust you because i can't understand your prose.

Sorry .

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

Wow, you totally don't come across as arrogant at all.

What's arrogant about that? I don't think anything academic plays as big a role in people's lives than economics.

Sparks wrote:

The "The point was to establish that what scientists agree on are, generally, not questioned by the public. This is not the case with what economists agree on." quote though, that's a bit more off, and has been ever since Oppenheimer.

Reply to this answering either "(i)" or "(ii)". Which is debated more regularly:
(i) PD economics vs Labour economics
(ii) Creationism v Darwinism

John

Angry Banana wrote:

What's arrogant about that? I don't think anything academic plays as big a role in people's lives than economics.

Physics plays a bigger role. However, like economics, most people are just ignorant of the role.

Crash

actually, while you can argue that without economics, engineers would have nothing to build, you can also argue that without engineers, economists wouldnt have any nice offices.

Nietzschean

though would you not class the first settled people as engineers as they built their own places/design'd them, that system worked perfect without any pesky economists no?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Nietzschean wrote:

though would you not class the first settled people as engineers as they built their own places/design'd them, that system worked perfect without any pesky economists no?

you try living in a cave. economic theories such as the development of money and the division of labour, have had a huge impact on people's well-being.

until the development of money people had to perform most of their tasks by themselves, money allowed them the potential to concentrate on what they did best, thus eventually leading to the emergence of concepts such as entertainment and nations. hardly a minor contribution....

Nietzschean

living in a cave isn't too bad, none of them mobiles n phones for people to ring ye n bother ye, sounds like the nice quiet simple life. None of these exams lark...

to sorta respond, i wasn't putting economics down i was just replying to neil's post in that engineers in some form probally existed before economists.....i didn't really have a point to my statement other than that...