tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post6160675325540477274..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Is econ a science? On its good days, yes.Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24006417997414622302012-03-31T18:32:05.370-04:002012-03-31T18:32:05.370-04:00Perhaps a look at the engineering world will shed ...Perhaps a look at the engineering world will shed some light. I assume many of the readers of this blog fly commercially. Many also have flown on Boeing 737s and (perhaps) have looked out the window often enough to notice that the wings seem to be sprouting ...wings. An aerospace firm in the Seattle area developed a form of blended winglet for 737s that they sold to airlines with the promise of increased fuel efficiency. Boeing engineers ran their models and decided the winglets wouldn't work. A big arguement ensued, mostly around the proposition on the part of the non-Boeing engineers that Boeing's model broke down at the margin, in this case the wingtip. In the meantime, airlines got even better fuel efficiency than advetised and retrofitted winglets as fast as as possible. The problem, in essence was that Boeing's staff had an ownership, an investment in their model, and only in the face of overwhelming evidence (loud feedback from their customers) were they willing to adjust their model. So where will the feedback come from for economists? Public opinion, public spending patterns? Models can and do behave badly at the margin. That is a continuing theme of Paul Krugman's that does not seem to get him the respect this admission deserves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48585569399379229012011-12-01T13:16:44.710-05:002011-12-01T13:16:44.710-05:00One of the reasons economics is not a science is t...One of the reasons economics is not a science is that the world is always changing. Each generation faces new problems, with new factors coming into play: innovations in technology, new definitions of money, alterations in the law, trade, politics, international relations, demography, customary standards of living, family patterns -- the list, if not endless, is certainly indeterminate.<br /><br />Unlike the worlds of physics, chemistry, and biology, where the laws of nature are ever the same, both in time and space; where fundamental particles are always identical, the constants of nature always constant, functional relationships precise, continuous, and well-defined (f=ma, The Heisenberg uncertainty principle), in the world of economics there is nothing of the kind. Such general laws as do always apply are qualitative, not quantitative, capable at best of a rough geometric illustration, not algebraice formulation, for which no equal sign is ever justified, no tilden unjustified, no two objects identical, or even the same object identical at two different moments in time.<br /><br />In other words economics is to be conceived as a historical science the sense that the trained practitioner must be educated not only in general principles but also in the history of economic ideas and policies as they have evolved in relation to changes in the economic and political circumstances of the societies in which they arose, and to which they were applied. He must, in short, be cogniscant of modern historical experience, as well as to the changing contemporary realities of the world he lives in.<br /><br />For these reasons economics is not a cumulative body of knowledge, except to a very limited extent. A student of the hard science need scarcely bother himself with the history of the discipline he is learning; with economics such knowledge is indispensable. For the competient practictioner of the art recent history may be more relevant than distant history, though not always, and no history is so remote as to be completely irrelevant at one time or another.Luke Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290760894780619646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65364609465257262212011-06-08T06:01:15.957-04:002011-06-08T06:01:15.957-04:00As expected, you approach the concept "scienc...As expected, you approach the concept "science" like most economists do: with no real understanding of the contemporary literature on the philosophy of science. Just a hint, it's a bit more complex than alluding to falsifiability over and over ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-25605708895576969082011-05-12T02:46:04.940-04:002011-05-12T02:46:04.940-04:00wow, it is wonderfulwow, it is wonderfulTammy Edmondhttp://www.repszone.com/citizen-rep-watches-1686.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-63127006407260593832011-05-12T02:29:44.437-04:002011-05-12T02:29:44.437-04:00wow, it is wonderful and charming
i will share i...wow, it is wonderful and charming <br />i will share it with my friends<br />-<a href="http://www.repszone.com/citizen-rep-watches-1686.html" rel="nofollow">Citizen rep watches</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69069848017875426392011-03-23T20:17:24.344-04:002011-03-23T20:17:24.344-04:00Hi, Noah. I share Kien's view about experiment...Hi, Noah. I share Kien's view about experimental science. In <i>Six Easy Pieces</i> Richard Feynman wrote:<br />"This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are <i>theoretical</i> physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are <i>experimental</i> physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess."<br /><br />I think something similar must apply to economics. I think economists lack the theory that explains our troubles.<br /><br />ArtThe Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30608632226152458062011-03-18T02:44:34.538-04:002011-03-18T02:44:34.538-04:00I largely agree with your observations about econo...I largely agree with your observations about economics as a science. One comment is whether your idea of "science" is too narrow. Is Astronomy part of science? Astronomers mostly only observe without being able to conduct experiments. Perhaps science is much broader than just experimental science.<br /><br />I also wonder if we should regard experimental science as superior to other empirical methods. There is a debate as to how far randomized controlled trials can go in advancing policy prescriptions. <br /><br />I don't think economics should aspire to becoming an experimental science. I think history/archaelogy/astronomy are a better model for the discipline of economics.Kienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643929814291369340noreply@blogger.com