Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gibbon1 | Hacker News Reader

I think you'd agree with me that the problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art.

And this is utterly true of Economics more than anything. And actually while a lot of arts have been pulling themselves back from that rat hole economics just keeps digging deeper.

View on HN

The problem with economics is the money riding on it. If one day the consensus becomes "raising the minimum wage by $5 only impacts profit; it doesn't impact employment" then a lot of very rich people stand to lose a lot of money as it becomes more politically palatable.

Economics is the most highly paid soft science for a reason.

Climate science has the same issue but fortunately they have managed to resist the corrupting influence of money.

Their hard science fetish isn't really the issue. Money is.

Yeah 1960-80's post modern literary criticism is just embarrassing and no cares. Modern architecture is merely ugly. But economics enabled real harm to people and communities.

> The problem with economics is the money riding on it. If one day the consensus becomes "raising the minimum wage by $5 only impacts profit; it doesn't impact employment" then a lot of very rich people stand to lose a lot of money as it becomes more politically palatable.

Reality is a bit more nuanced than you depict it [1][2].

> Climate science has the same issue but fortunately they have managed to resist the corrupting influence of money.

So scientists are more or less corrupt, depending on how much you think they agree with you?

[1]http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/minimum-wage

[2]http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage

There is a good good comment by Martin Gardner about fallacious science. Which is when the evidence and scientific feedback are weak[1] then scientific theories strongly mimic the cultural biases of the people involves.

That's modern economic orthodoxy in a nutshell.

It's not just economics that's an issue a friend used to date a lady that was getting (25 years ago) a double major in anthropology and artificial intelligence. She said from an anthropological perspective AI research was nothing but white academic introspection.

[1] Example of strong feedback, two 737-MAX's crashing within a few months.

As Ha Joon Chang points out in his book Economics: The User's Guide, economics is about political arguments yet pretends as if it's a science. Hence most economists don't like the politics of Pinkety's economics. Which is what the op was alluding to though he did not mention explicitly... because they depend on money from people who don't like forwarding that political agenda. Secondly, it seems that the math that he used to make some of those arguments is not up to par so that makes it easy to dismiss his political arguments, and that's the issue when you go up against the status quo you better have inscrutable math because they are going to find any reason to dismiss you.

Just because something isn't science, doesn't mean that it is art. Social "sciences", psychology and the like are neither. It is true however that they get more and more ridiculous when they try to dress their ideologies in a scientifically-sounding language to get a piece of the cake which is credibility that the hard sciences cooked for themselves, at the same time having remarkably little to do with any science at all.

Who are you to decide what is science and what isn't? What is your model of what a science is anyway? As long as you can't answer that, the only thing unscientific is your comment.

I understand science the way Popper wrote about it. Yes, my comment is unscientific. I've never claimed otherwise. Just because something is unscientific, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. E.g. I study mathematics and I do not consider mathematics a science (I know many other mathematicians who share this attitude) and yet I consider the study of mathematics to be one the best ways to spend my time.

It sounds like you’ve discovered the problems with the softer sciences. You should look into whatever you consider a “real” science and see if it doesn’t have many of the same problems. That would require a bit more effort and intellect, problems in psychology and economics are pretty obvious, but you might be amazed by what you find.

I agree that there are fundamental problems in the hard sciences as well. E.g. the hype around string theory in physics. However, in this case I am told by the physicists, whom I know personally, that no physicist considers it "real physics" - they consider it mathematics (and many mathematicians consider it poor mathematics). The issue here seems largely to be the distorted image that the press presents of the views of the scientific community.

There are other examples, but the problems are nowhere near as big as in the fields my comment was suspicious of. And of course there surely are a lot of problems I don't have the slightest idea about. Still, the mindset of the scientists I know is so much different from the mindset of sociologists and others who seem much more driven by fashion. Back to physicists, I don't claim they are exempt from the influence of fashion. I claim that the impact of this influence is on a whole different level; there are lines that are not crossed, everything is up for falsification by experiment, and if it isn't falsifiable, then to hell with it etc. All of this makes me trust them a lot more.

"(T)he problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art."

I'm not well versed in areas other than architecture, but I'm really puzzled where you'd go with this thesis with respect to that discipline. Would you care to elaborate further? I'm genuinely curious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com