Losing perspective -- no "big picture"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,
many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.
..
..
--

(David P.) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,
many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.

Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science. Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:

Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science. Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.

Results 1 - 50 of about 585 for "Economics is NOT a science".

Results 1 - 50 of about 19,700 for "Economics is a science".
..
..
--

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.econ.]
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 05:30:28 -0500, Bob Kolker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
(David P.) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,
many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.

Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science. Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.

If that were true then the exeperiments that people like
Plott and Smith engage in should produce purely random
outcomes.

If the experimental data produces patterned outcomes that
trace to underlying causal factors then economics can be
pursued as a science. The pure logic of the subject, be
it modern neoclassical analysis (say Varian) or the
deductive approach of say Mises (man thinks and acts
to accomplish self-defined ends) is similarly just as
"scientific" as pure math.

jmh

On 2 Feb 2007 23:35:40 -0800, (David P.) in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
Bob Kolker wrote:

Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science. Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.

Results 1 - 50 of about 585 for "Economics is NOT a science".

Results 1 - 50 of about 19,700 for "Economics is a science".
.


On the off chance these are more than mere troll/bot postings,
how are the "Yea" and "Nea" counted?

jmh

Bob Kolker wrote:
(David P.) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,

many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.


Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science.

Then your definition of science is far, far too restrictive. Physics
was a science, even when it was about phlogiston. The point of
it *being* science is the method by which it changes, not
the end result.

Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.


That doesn't make it nonscience, either.

Bob Kolker



--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:


Then your definition of science is far, far too restrictive. Physics
was a science, even when it was about phlogiston. The point of

The phlogiston hypothesis was refuted empirically. It was disproven by
Lavoisier. The phlogiston hypothesis was both scientific (it could be
tested) and false (it was refuted experimentally)

Bob Kolker

Les Cargill wrote:
Bob Kolker wrote:

(David P.) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,


many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.



Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science.


Then your definition of science is far, far too restrictive. Physics
was a science, even when it was about phlogiston. The point of
it *being* science is the method by which it changes, not
the end result.

Extremely well said, Les.

Mark M.

In article ,
Bob Kolker wrote:

(David P.) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world

From the time of Newton, or perhaps even Descartes,
many branches of modern science (perhaps the most
extreme example being economics) have been
increasingly accused of losing perspective due to their
over-stretched efforts to find explanations of nature
which are easily analysed in terms of easily measured
and easily mathematicised terms.

Economics is NOT a science. It never was a science. It will never be a
science. Built in to every economic theory is an explanation of why its
predictions sometimes fail.

Economics was invented to make astrology look good. You
see now why Nancy Reagan was the brains of the outfit.

--
Michael Press

Bob Kolker wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:



Then your definition of science is far, far too restrictive. Physics
was a science, even when it was about phlogiston. The point of


The phlogiston hypothesis was refuted empirically. It was disproven by
Lavoisier. The phlogiston hypothesis was both scientific (it could be
tested) and false (it was refuted experimentally)

Bob Kolker


And present theories in economics will be tested and refuted. Several
have already - the Malthusian core of most of the 2oth Centuries'
exposed frauds for a start.

We can't use a standard of maturity of the subject to say
whether or not it's a valid field of enquiry.

--
Les Cargill