1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
The point is the poster above was trying to diminish the field of study's legitimacy. Reading between the lines of his post he was doing so because of his political leanings, not because he disagreed with any particular contribution of a economics Nobelist's contribution to human knowledge.
We should aspire to be above of such toxic ideologism.
If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too.
The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self-congratulatory and self-important than they already do.
I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs.
(Also I suspect that there might be some linguistic misunderstanding here, maybe some participants are used to think in a language where the most common translation of "science" does not include the subset of social sciences?),
Them credentials!
ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
I read Nobel in Economics as 'Nobel in maths (largely statistical optimization) and behavioural psychology'. I personally believe the field adds significant value to society.
That said, I do think the award is rather liberally given away. We credit scientists only when their theories test out in practice with sufficient evidence whereas we are more willing to give economists a pass in the name of 'not enough data' or 'valid under certain conditions' . I think we should award only the fundamental time tested truths (statistical or otherwise) which are so entrenched in the way of the world that its discovery has little or no bearing on its exact function. This would award Nash/Selten but not Merton/Scholes. The basic option pricing ended up being just a bunch of really cool but limited equations which tend to be self fulfilling prophecies until when they don't.
Matter of fact turned out to be that politicians and laymen only listen to the economics they want to hear, Nobel or not.
I think we should aspire to be above reading between the lines. When we do so, we tend to see that which we want to see, regardless of the author's intent.