Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Cant see at all how it can be called a science

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rolling hIlls said:

It is not a science. Too many variables. Sciences have definate answers. Hence a bsc in maths but a ba in economics. Love teaching it though.

 

Four cans of Stella + internet forum + attempted window merchant = pish posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, exile said:

Thomas Carlyle notoriously labelled economics "the dismal science"

But is it dismal? And is it a science? And does it matter?

The Dismal Science Remains Dismal, say Scientists (Wired)

Why Economics Is Really Called 'the Dismal Science' (The Atlantic)

A less dismal science (The Economist)

 

He labelled it the Dismal science in dichotomy to the Gay science, not saying the science was "dismal" lol.

All the other articles say what i say science is the use of the scientific method. an example from the wired article.

The problem is that only a few journals and subfields in economics have been willing to take up the new standards of controlled trials, openness, and reproducibility that other social sciences—behavioral psychology, most notably—have largely embraced. “Adoption of improved practices is idiosyncratic and governed by local norms,” Camerer says.

 

Just finished reading the original piece it's a call to restart slavery to keep the West Indies productive. Should we be taking ideas from a piece who's main theme is to answer the "negro problem" with reconstituting slavery as it would provide economic boom. No wonder you don't think economics can't be a science when one looks where you get your ideas from.

Edited by phart
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rolling hIlls said:

It is not a science. Too many variables. Sciences have definate answers. Hence a bsc in maths but a ba in economics. Love teaching it though.

 

you can get a bsc in economics. Also i'd suggest tightening up your rules of taxonomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could put all of the economists in the world hand to hand and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.  There might well be some Bsc's in Economics Phart but it ain't a science.  If it was a science every country on the planet would be living the economic dream as 1 + 1 would equal 2.  Economics doesn't work like that, hence it is an art.  Micro as well as Macro.  I went to Tesco half an hour ago and got a half bottle of Glenlivet (truth).  £18.50.  According to economic laws of the price mechanism I should have gone for a substitute product.  But the brand and product sways me more than the price.  But there is a thing called price elasticity.  So there will be a point where if they put it up too much I would then look for a substitute.  But not tonight so stand on guard.  Scotland Forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a social science meaning you have added humanity into the mix... Not surprisingly they struggle with pinpoint definitions and hard data.

Of all the social sciences it is probably one of the most scientific due to the availability of raw data (money being very measurable, anything quoted in it...) and one of the most 'Hard SWcience' parts of economics is Finance theory with is based a lot on stock market data (prices) which is very rich. Econometrics is basically maths (mostly statistics)wrapped around economics.

For me  meteorology is a science and it is on a par with economics in predictive ability... about 2-3 days ahead max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll just say this... when that alarm goes off tomorrow (or Monday) morning... and you get up slavishly and go to work... economics.

 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 5:46 PM, phart said:

 

He labelled it the Dismal science in dichotomy to the Gay science, not saying the science was "dismal" lol.

All the other articles say what i say science is the use of the scientific method. an example from the wired article.

The problem is that only a few journals and subfields in economics have been willing to take up the new standards of controlled trials, openness, and reproducibility that other social sciences—behavioral psychology, most notably—have largely embraced. “Adoption of improved practices is idiosyncratic and governed by local norms,” Camerer says.

 

Just finished reading the original piece it's a call to restart slavery to keep the West Indies productive. Should we be taking ideas from a piece who's main theme is to answer the "negro problem" with reconstituting slavery as it would provide economic boom. No wonder you don't think economics can't be a science when one looks where you get your ideas from.

I simply said it was debatable if economics is a science.  The responses on this thread so far would suggest it is.  However, I have not taken a stance on either side of the debate. 

The term "dismal science" is a reasonably well known term  (even if it's origin clearly isn't) that's routinely used by mainstream publications such as The Economist, The Atlantic and Wired, etc. without fear of censure (still, you may have noticed I actually stuck in the word 'notoriously', maybe that wasn't enough to distance myself from Carlyle?). Maybe we shouldn't use the phrase any more, because of its original context - that is also debatable - though it alerts us to the minefield of quoting anyone from the past since many of them must be, by today's standards, incorrigibly politically incorrect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, exile said:

I simply said it was debatable if economics is a science.  The responses on this thread so far would suggest it is.  However, I have not taken a stance on either side of the debate. 

The term "dismal science" is a reasonably well known term  (even if it's origin clearly isn't) that's routinely used by mainstream publications such as The Economist, The Atlantic and Wired, etc. without fear of censure (still, you may have noticed I actually stuck in the word 'notoriously', maybe that wasn't enough to distance myself from Carlyle?). Maybe we shouldn't use the phrase any more, because of its original context - that is also debatable - though it alerts us to the minefield of quoting anyone from the past since many of them must be, by today's standards, incorrigibly politically incorrect.  

Here's what you said

"Thomas Carlyle notoriously labelled economics "the dismal science"

But is it dismal? And is it a science? And does it matter?"

I said "piece" not person.

I was speaking about the original document not the person who wrote it or the "catch phrase", look and see.

" Just finished reading the original piece it's a call to restart slavery to keep the West Indies productive. Should we be taking ideas from a piece who's main theme is to answer the "negro problem" with reconstituting slavery as it would provide economic boom. No wonder you don't think economics can't be a science when one looks where you get your ideas from. "

 

Then you away and made a thread on your misunderstanding as well. So much labour over a point that wasn't even expressed.

See what passive aggression does to you? :P I look forward to the next thread :) 

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phart said:

Here's what you said

"Thomas Carlyle notoriously labelled economics "the dismal science"

But is it dismal? And is it a science? And does it matter?"

I said "piece" not person.

I was speaking about the original document not the person who wrote it or the "catch phrase", look and see.

" Just finished reading the original piece it's a call to restart slavery to keep the West Indies productive. Should we be taking ideas from a piece who's main theme is to answer the "negro problem" with reconstituting slavery as it would provide economic boom. No wonder you don't think economics can't be a science when one looks where you get your ideas from. "

 

Then you away and made a thread on your misunderstanding as well. So much labour over a point that wasn't even expressed.

See what passive aggression does to you? :P I look forward to the next thread :) 

I give up trying to work out why you are responding like this. So much labour? Passive aggression? Next thread already there.  :lol: 

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economics is not a science.  Or is it? If I go to the toilet for a shite is that science? Thats the same argument about going to work for money. Is it too early for a glenlivet? Naw. Now that is scientific 💪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...