So you fucking think fry cooks don't deserve a higher minimum wage?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Okay... Let's back up.


I'm pretty sure you've agreed that there is a structure for economics to behave as a science, and that there are people who treat it as a science. You've also adamantly held that the majority of self-professed economists don't act that way.

So, I think we have all agreed on two points

1) ECONOMICS CAN BE TREATED AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.

2) A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T TREAT ECONOMICS AS A SCIENCE.  SOME DO.



Thwack, where are you currently finding disagreement?

I agree with both of those points, my issue is how it's treated at an institutional level. Are both approaches accepted by academia? Are both approaches accepted by leading professional organizations? The answer is yes, in both cases it's accepted to treat economics as a "social science". Saying non-scientific approaches are acceptable, yet economics still is a science would be like arguing it's OK to include astrology as part of astronomy without introducing problems with then calling astronomy a science.

It is a social science by definition because it is the study of animal behavior. Social science is a valid form of science, it's just not a physical or hard science. I'm a hard scientist, but even I can recognize the validity of the social sciences. Institutionally, economics is generally treated as exactly what it is: a social science. It cannot be treated as any other kind of science because it is incapable of being any other type of science, any more than sociology or anthropology are capable of being any other types of science.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Can you perhaps explain what you think "social science" means?

[Rev Thwack]

Social science means it's focused on the interaction and nature of man, to put it simply.... These absurd requests like this do nothing but work as snide subtle insults, and don't reflect well on your ability to hold a discussion.


Either way, I've said before and will say again that I don't hold social sciences to be sciences. Science is a specific process, and that process is not a core feature of social sciences. Yes, it can be adhered to at times, but it's not a defining feature. This isn't saying that social sciences are useless or even of less value than other sciences, just that the label doesn't truly apply. This view isn't an uncommon one, and it applies to more than just the social sciences.



My field is computer science. The question of calling a social science a science applies to computer science as well, and many state that it's not a science. Personally, I understand where the question arises with my field, and would say that while it's leaning towards being a science, it's not there yet. Computer science meets most criteria and definitions of a science, yet still too often relies on and centers around theories that are not falsifiable... One of the same flaws seen by many about the social science realm. This is something that seems to be changing in computer science, and my personal hope is that the full scientific method will become a defining feature of computer science. The science label being inappropriate doesn't detract from the value of the field, it just means it's not an appropriate label.


The unwillingness to update hypothesis/predictions/theories based on real world data and results, that's something that talks against the value of a field, and that's a problem faced by economics.

[Cain]

Speaking as someone who studies a social science, your beliefs about social sciences are completely wrong.  Observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing and analysis are the core of the scientific method and this methodology has been adopted wholesale by the social sciences.

The problems come in at the tesing phase, where usually data is historical because of the difficulty of testing under controlled conditions the hypothesis is frequently difficult to impossible (how do you undertake a test to devise the probability of interstate war in the aftermath of civil war without relying on historical data?) and in quantifying data for analysis in some specific cases.  In such cases, qualitative research is often undertaken as a preliminary approach to inform quantitative data gathering in the future and open avenues for future research.

Reliance on historical data obviously hamstrings social science in a very specific way, as does being unable to control all variables in those historical models.  Attempting to account for these difficulties means the complexity of social science often quickly reaches levels far beyond that seen in the natural sciences, making conclusions far more contingent and less reliable than those available to natural science researchers.

[Rev Thwack]

Speaking as someone who studies a social science, your beliefs about social sciences are completely wrong.  Observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing and analysis are the core of the scientific method and this methodology has been adopted wholesale by the social sciences.

The problems come in at the tesing phase, where usually data is historical because of the difficulty of testing under controlled conditions the hypothesis is frequently difficult to impossible (how do you undertake a test to devise the probability of interstate war in the aftermath of civil war without relying on historical data?) and in quantifying data for analysis in some specific cases.  In such cases, qualitative research is often undertaken as a preliminary approach to inform quantitative data gathering in the future and open avenues for future research.

Reliance on historical data obviously hamstrings social science in a very specific way, as does being unable to control all variables in those historical models.  Attempting to account for these difficulties means the complexity of social science often quickly reaches levels far beyond that seen in the natural sciences, making conclusions far more contingent and less reliable than those available to natural science researchers.

Cain, there's a disconnect between saying that the social sciences follow the scientific method and saying that they often can't complete the testing step and thus must rely on historical data. There's also a problem with saying that economics follows the scientific method when you have sending like the Austrian school as an accepted school of though, while it advocates and claims that formulating testable hypothesis isn't applicable to the field of study. There's a problem with saying that economics in particular uses historical data to update and refine models, when the widely accepted neoclassical economics ignores the historical evidence that individuals don't act in an economically rational method.




If my beliefs about social sciences is completely wrong, why is there widespread acceptance in social sciences of actions inconsistent with the scientific method and of schools of thought that state specifically that the scientific method isn't applicable to their field?

[LMNO]

Quick question: If economics is not a science, and by your mode of thought there can't possibly be a science of economics, then how do you suggest we analyze the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services?

[Rev Thwack]

Quick question: If economics is not a science, and by your mode of thought there can't possibly be a science of economics, then how do you suggest we analyze the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services?

One, I never said there can't be a science of economics, I said it's not there yet.


Two, I never said that it's useless for predictions & analysis just because it's not a science.



Three, when you take a view of economics that includes all accepted schools and philosophies instead of just specific ones, looking at real world outcomes compared to predictions and analysis, what kind of track record does the field have?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Can you talk a little more about what you mean by "widespread acceptance"? You may think these questions are snide subtle insults, but you have a tendency to make vague, sweeping statements, and then to say "that's not what I meant" when people attempt to refute them.

The fact that there are widespread problems with the field is something that I think we all agree with. What that means in terms of the field falling within or without of the realm of social science is another matter. Obviously, you are fully entitled to your beliefs about whether social science is, indeed, science at all, but I am in agreement with Cain in that from what you have written here so far, it appears that your understanding of social science, and of science at all, is fairly erroneous.

[Rev Thwack]

Widespread acceptance... You've got reputable universities offering degrees specializing the the Austrian school... You've got Nobel prizes being awarded to neoclassical economists... If this isn't widespread acceptance, what is?



You might doubt my understanding of what is or isn't a science, yet you can hardly say I'm alone in rejecting social sciences as actual sciences, and you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Widespread acceptance... You've got reputable universities offering degrees specializing the the Austrian school... You've got Nobel prizes being awarded to neoclassical economists... If this isn't widespread acceptance, what is?



You might doubt my understanding of what is or isn't a science, yet you can hardly say I'm alone in rejecting social sciences as actual sciences, and you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side.

Appeal to authority much? You are a slippery bastard to try to have a discussion with. Would you like to try to put together a simple, cogent, point-by-point case? Because essentially what you are currently doing, still, is saying "Here's this thing that happens! Here's that thing that happens!", while seeming to disregard that you can find professors with endorsing questionable schools of thought in major universities in almost any field, and even winning Nobel prizes. And, although I disagree with them, I am not sure disregarding economists who embrace neoliberalism is in itself a sound argument.

You again appeal to authority, saying "you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side". OK... so cite them. Point us toward their arguments, if you cannot formulate one of your own. I only request that they and their criticisms be current, and not historical, as we are talking about the current state of social science, not the historical state.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This seems relevant: http://chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This also seems relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-social-sciences-physics-envy.html?_r=0

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And then there's this article, which I suspect it's possible that both of us will agree with: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/

Even as biological sciences start folding in lessons from data analysis that is more typical of social sciences, social sciences seem to be scrambling to adopt the language and methods of hard sciences, which I think is a mistake. Social science is statistics to hard science's calculus; both employ methodological approaches that are uniquely suited to different types of data, and both are advancing apace. You can even have the most complex of both worlds in fields like epidemiology and epigenetics. Copping the language of hard science by bastardizing its language in an effort to gain legitimacy is embarrassing and reflective of an inferiority complex that is, IMO, unnecessary.

I also think that the hangup on the idea of experimental data is a throwback to a more primitive era of science when, lacking sophisticated technology or data-collecting methods, it was the best we could do. Many gains in our knowledge of molecular biology and brain function are dependent on "experiments" that are simply advanced methods of observation. Does that render them not science? I would beg to differ, and as our observational technology improves, we will increasingly have methods for looking inside a living cell and observing mechanisms that could previously only be inferred from experimental machinations that attempted to approximate true observation of processes too small to observe directly.

[Rev Thwack]

Appeal to authority much?

Well, when you're looking to see if something is accepted by a field, wouldn't it be prudent to see if it's accepted by authority sources in the field? If you're trying to find out the United State's take on the occupation of the West Bank, it's not a fallacy to see what the POTUS can Congress have said/passed regarding it.

You are a slippery bastard to try to have a discussion with.

No, it only appears that way because I keep having to respond to different, tangential direct lines of questioning, and because you're often attacking arguments I never made, but we'll get more into that later in this post.

Would you like to try to put together a simple, cogent, point-by-point case?

This would be easier if you didn't keep shifting lines of attack and points of interest, but let's see what we can do:


So, if we look back to my first post in this thread that dealt with economics to find what sparked this, we'll see this post

I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics.

Reading that, we find that my initial argument was that economics is not a science. Now, the only reasoning I provided as to why it's not a science was because it can miss out on using evidence/results to challenge the hypothesis, but that is still a reasoning and if it holds as true, then it would mean that economics does not follow the scientific method. The quote did also give an example of this occurring, with that example being the continued acceptance of supply side economics.

So, what happened next wasn't a debate on if my argument held up, a debate on the reasoning I used to support my argument, or a debate on the example I provided... what happened was you jumping directly to ad hominem attacks.


If we look at my next post that was dealing with this discussion and wasn't just me admonishing you for resorting to baseless personal attacks, we'll find this:

It's not the inability to predict results that people here are knocking economists on, but the seemingly unwillingness to update their theories based upon experiments that give results contrary to what was predicted.

So, once again, my complaint for the second time now is data not being used to update theories/predictions/models. After that, you resorted to trying to back up your personal attacks by using a joke I made and a quote taken from a different discussion and injecting them into this thread, before getting back on topic with a second post:

You can find "experts in a field" saying all kinds of things that are incongruent with the science in that field. That's where we get "experts" like Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola.

LMNO then parroted this, and we then began the train of me trying to point out to you where it's not just fringe Dr. Oz types who don't update their priors and people arguing things incongruent in the field, but instead that there are whole schools of thought that are accepted in the field and are built upon priors which have been contradicted by historical and real world data and/or deny that falsifiable hypothesis have pertinence to the field at all.

Because essentially what you are currently doing, still, is saying "Here's this thing that happens! Here's that thing that happens!", while seeming to disregard that you can find professors with endorsing questionable schools of thought in major universities in almost any field, and even winning Nobel prizes.

No, what I've been doing has been very specific... saying that economics itself, as a field, does not use the scientific method, and specifically the components of developing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing the hypothesis against collected data, as a integral component of itself. While yes, there are examples of where it is used, it is not a defining feature, as evidenced by the continued acceptance as a valid viewpoint, things such as the Austrian school, Laissez-faire capitalism, and the Chicago school.


What I haven't been doing, that you've accused me of doing, is arguing that data must be collected via tests instead of historical data, arguing that economics is meaningless / useless, or arguing that by not being a science, economics somehow is of less value than it would be otherwise. I see value in economics, I see where it is useful, but I also see it as one of the humanities such as philosophy.

You again appeal to authority, saying "you can hardly say that my stance doesn't have many intelligent, well respected scientists on its side". OK... so cite them. Point us toward their arguments, if you cannot formulate one of your own. I only request that they and their criticisms be current, and not historical, as we are talking about the current state of social science, not the historical state.

I have formulated one of my own, and I've explained it, but since you feel you need yet more examples:

We can see what thoughts on this come from members of the humanities -
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/what-is-economics-good-for/?ref=opinion&_r=0

We can see what some economists themselves say -
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/is-economics-a-science-spoiler-alert-nope/
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

We can hear the take of a well respected geneticists -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NiauhOCfsk

because apparently you've rejected my video featuring Richard Feynman as not being recent enough to still be viable.



Now, would you like to quit resulting to personal attacks, strawmen, and unrelated topics, and instead just stick with the actual discussion that's happening?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

tl;dr