Speculative fields have became more noticeable. Though, can you tell me what is not speculative in social culture?
If one were to push it, what you call "fake disciplines" can extend to most of human society. Don't go there.
If one were to push it, what you call "fake disciplines" can extend to most of human society. Don't go there.
I would like to point out research in low-probability events, response to too-big-to-fail, fat tails and black swans in defense of emerging Financial Engineering and Risk Management. The best defense of it that I have ever seen was in the book "The Black Swan".
When I said I have read about FE and LTCM in the "Black Swan", I meant that the people working there are not complacent. The author of that book for example seems genuinely active - though might not be considered likeable. The virtue of the author's criticism to the field that he belongs, he shows the fluidity adherent to him and others within finance.
Let's compare it to an example from the automotive industry. Companies out of Detroit have been complacent, which had run into serious design troubles. They were in the business of making mediocre cars. When faced with the prospect of bankruptcy, Ford had the chance to reform before the financial crisis hit. GM and Chrysler - which was owned by Benz earlier - leadership flew to Washington to ask for unspecified amount of money. I cannot assign causality of badness in the current networked world, but the physical/manufacturing car guys seemed to be worse than LTCM. And they had the nerve to face California in court over car emission requirements. So, there are other people that have not acted with diligence to the community.
It is about people though. It is not about disciplines. It is all about people.
Is environmental engineering also a fake discipline since it's difficult to model and various disasters have resulted?