Ackademics crushing ecenomic theories?

[Loki]

That's a nice excuse you've got going there. So, anything outside the theory is an "anomaly" and need not be explained. That's great and shows that economics does not even deserve the title "science".

For a theory to be deserving of its name, even the anomalies still have to be covered by it.

I take it you also think epidemiology isn't a science either, right? You seem to have a warped idea of what science is. Science is the method for investigating phenomena. Science has nothing to do with the results of such investigations.

[CitizenCain]

I take it you also think epidemiology isn't a science either, right? You seem to have a warped idea of what science is. Science is the method for investigating phenomena. Science has nothing to do with the results of such investigations.

You'd probably do better to point out all the "anomalies" which current physics theories can't quite explain... and thus, that physics isn't a science either, by Khen's logic.

[Loki]

You'd probably do better to point out all the "anomalies" which current physics theories can't quite explain... and thus, that physics isn't a science either, by Khen's logic.

I think I'd be better off assuming that Khen doesn't know what science is, and is more concerned with making unsubstantiated arguments and then running away when proven wrong (e.g. the claim that Iraq isn't safer now than in 2007).

And for anyone who wants to defend epidemiology, it actually investigates things in a very similar way to political science, only less rigorously. Economics has a more solid foundation than political science, so make of that what you will.

[CitizenCain]

I think I'd be better off assuming that Khen doesn't know what science is, and is more concerned with making unsubstantiated arguments and then running away when proven wrong (e.g. the claim that Iraq isn't safer now than in 2007).

Well sure, but if we accept that, we might as well just go straight to asking him how many Jews he can fit in his oven, because that line of questioning yields much more amusing responses with Khen.

[Khendraja'aro]

I take it you also think epidemiology isn't a science either, right? You seem to have a warped idea of what science is. Science is the method for investigating phenomena. Science has nothing to do with the results of such investigations.

At least epidemiology isn't afraid to throw their theories out of the window... you economists are using the same wrong theories for decades and then wonder why they don't work.

And your last sentence doesn't even make any sense.

If I investigate something, then that investigation will yield a result. Said result will have consequences (in science: strengthening the theory or disproving it).
So, how exactly can science have nothing to do with the results of such investigations? That's like saying: "Well, we examine everything but afterwards we just throw the results out of the window!"

[Khendraja'aro]

You'd probably do better to point out all the "anomalies" which current physics theories can't quite explain... and thus, that physics isn't a science either, by Khen's logic.

Then maybe you could point out some if you're oh so knowledgable?

[CitizenCain]

Then maybe you could point out some if you're oh so knowledgable?

Well certainly nothing important... like the whole Higgs-Boson thing (can't explain where mass comes from with current theories, so we'll say it comes from a particle we have no evidence exists)... or the universe acting as if it's much more massive than we can observe (must be "dark matter" and "dark energy")... or the recent thermodynamics brouhaha (reclassification of black holes as maximum entropy objects instead of minimum entropy objects).

No, no. Current physics theories account for every anomaly, which is why new theories never evolve in physics.

[Khendraja'aro]

I think you did not quite grasp the disconnect between how Loki stated that theories work and how actual science works with theories.

He stated that since his precious theories are probabilistic in nature, that some events are mere "anomalies" and need not be explained because they're just anomalies.

[LittleFuzzy]

I take it you also think epidemiology isn't a science either, right? You seem to have a warped idea of what science is. Science is the method for investigating phenomena. Science has nothing to do with the results of such investigations.

But economics isn't a science.

[CitizenCain]

I think you did not quite grasp the disconnect between how Loki stated that theories work and how actual science works with theories.

He stated that since his precious theories are probabilistic in nature, that some events are mere "anomalies" and need not be explained because they're just anomalies.

Yeah, I didn't want to get into that whole thing, what with current theories on quantum mechanics and all. Which are widely accepted as "actual science," but postulate that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic in nature, at least at the quantum level.

[earthJoker]

Science is the method for investigating phenomena. Science has nothing to do with the results of such investigations.

I agree with that, science is a method not a outcome. But I still disagree with your first statement and I see where Khendraja'aro is getting his arguments about economics not being science.

A Theory is flawed with a single exception BUT in a probabilistic theory a single event that is off the predicted estimated value is not an exception. Also a scientific Theory should be possible to falsify otherwise it is worthless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Khendraja'aro]

What I meant to earlier was a mix-up of the word "event" and what Loki and I mean by it. An event could well be a single electron being where it should not be - it could also be an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale.

As long as one equates those to be the same dimension of event, we'll run afoul of probabilities. I dare say that things like the Great Depression are not one event, but a whole multitude of events, at least when comparing that to "an electron tunneled through the forbidden zone".

Yeah, I didn't want to get into that whole thing, what with current theories on quantum mechanics and all. Which are widely accepted as "actual science," but postulate that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic in nature, at least at the quantum level.

Yeah, but even those probabilistic models have rules

[Loki]

At least epidemiology isn't afraid to throw their theories out of the window... you economists are using the same wrong theories for decades and then wonder why they don't work.

And your last sentence doesn't even make any sense.

If I investigate something, then that investigation will yield a result. Said result will have consequences (in science: strengthening the theory or disproving it).
So, how exactly can science have nothing to do with the results of such investigations? That's like saying: "Well, we examine everything but afterwards we just throw the results out of the window!"

Again, I'd take you seriously if you stopped making grandiose statements about things you have absolutely no knowledge about. Have you ever read an economics journal? Theories are challenged regularly, and accepted theories change all the time. The dominant paradigm hasn't changed in a few decades, but the same is true in physics, which I believe you do consider to be a science. I also notice you didn't answer my question. Is epidemiology a science?

I agree with that, science is a method not a outcome. But I still disagree with your first statement and I see where Khendraja'aro is getting his arguments about economics not being science.

A Theory is flawed with a single exception BUT in a probabilistic theory a single event that is off the predicted estimated value is not an exception. Also a scientific Theory should be possible to falsify otherwise it is worthless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

All economics theories are falsifiable...you can't get published with an unfalsifiable theory. Hell, every theory is tested empirically...It just so happens that the results are usually: an x combination of variables will change the likelihood of y occurring by z%. Khen seems to believe that unless z% is either 0 or infinity, science is not being conducted.

But economics isn't a science.

Only if you exclude the social realm from what science is by definition.

[Khendraja'aro]

Sooo, how do you conduct an experiment on State Economics?

[Young Mage]

No, all economics theories say that if x occurs, y will occur with a probability of z.

Have you calculated sigma? mu? what test are you running? x^2cdf? Are you using a 95% confidence interval? Are you paying attention to you stat textbook when it says there are always extremes? or that there are outliers? or that the trimmed mean was used? or that the data could be skewed? there are too many confounding variables. Cain is right when he says it's as predictable as the economy.

[Loki]

You think you're smarter than people who get published in the top economics journals? Everyone recognizes the problems that are inherent in studying the social world, and either find ways around those problems or acknowledge them at the outset...It's also amusing that you're talking about issues that were recognized as being problems half a century ago. I wish the problems the social sciences faced today were anywhere near as simple.

I notice that in the 6 hours since I posted the two articles, not one opponent of economics has said how they were flawed.

[earthJoker]

I didn't said they are flawed, I said that many are not of much use for being to wishy whashy.

All economics theories are falsifiable...you can't get published with an unfalsifiable theory. Hell, every theory is tested empirically...It just so happens that the results are usually: an x combination of variables will change the likelihood of y occurring by z%. Khen seems to believe that unless z% is either 0 or infinity, science is not being conducted.

True, I agreed with you on that already from the start. But that's not what you said in your first post.
Well about the publishing thing, I don't agree 100%, there are too many suspicious theories published nowadays. But of course, I don't have the time to actually look throught the paper itself all the time:

[ar81]

Is Soros also a moron?

Soros knows nothing. Loki does know more.

Sooo, how do you conduct an experiment on State Economics?

Money matters in Eve Online game