Thanks for your comments. With an economics background I am frequently reminded of the limitations of the field, whether you consider it a science or not. The use of "scientific calculations" can give economic forecasts an overstated sense of accuracy and validity, especially given the prevalence of assumptions. The Economist piece provides a valuable service in prompting discussion, whether you agree with it or not.
On Jul 18 01:50 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:
> To Research Recap - > > There is nothing "wrong" with the field of economics itself per se. > The word "science" in the definition of economics as a "social science" > is perhaps a misnomer, in my opinion, just as in "political science". > No offense of mine to those who majored in political science in their > BA. > > Granted, I know political science is a very popular major in American > colleges. But to a lowly stoic engineer as myself, how could politics > be categorized as a science? A science or an engineering discipline > by defintion is predicated on the application of proven nature principles > with predictable and measurable outcomes. Is politics predictable? > > > The problem of most of today's economists is corruption of power. > The following excerpt from the Wikipedia sums it well : - > > "...Economics per se, as a social science, is independent of the > political acts of any government or other decision-making organization, > however, many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked positions > that can influence other people's lives are known for arbitrarily > using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as vehicles to > legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit their remarks > to matters relevant to their responsibilities. The close relation > of economic theory and practice with politics is a focus of contention > that may shade or distort the most unpretentious original tenets > of economics, and is often confused with specific social agendas > and value systems. > > Amen. > TK
-
Thanks for your comments. With an economics background I am frequently reminded of the limitations of the field, whether you consider it a science or not. The use of "scientific calculations" can give economic forecasts an overstated sense of accuracy and validity, especially given the prevalence of assumptions. The Economist piece provides a valuable service in prompting discussion, whether you agree with it or not.
Jul 23 13:01 pm
|Rating:
0
0
All Comments by Research Recap »What Went Wrong with Economics [View article]
On Jul 18 01:50 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:
> To Research Recap -
>
> There is nothing "wrong" with the field of economics itself per se.
> The word "science" in the definition of economics as a "social science"
> is perhaps a misnomer, in my opinion, just as in "political science".
> No offense of mine to those who majored in political science in their
> BA.
>
> Granted, I know political science is a very popular major in American
> colleges. But to a lowly stoic engineer as myself, how could politics
> be categorized as a science? A science or an engineering discipline
> by defintion is predicated on the application of proven nature principles
> with predictable and measurable outcomes. Is politics predictable?
>
>
> The problem of most of today's economists is corruption of power.
> The following excerpt from the Wikipedia sums it well : -
>
> "...Economics per se, as a social science, is independent of the
> political acts of any government or other decision-making organization,
> however, many policymakers or individuals holding highly ranked positions
> that can influence other people's lives are known for arbitrarily
> using a plethora of economic concepts and rhetoric as vehicles to
> legitimize agendas and value systems, and do not limit their remarks
> to matters relevant to their responsibilities. The close relation
> of economic theory and practice with politics is a focus of contention
> that may shade or distort the most unpretentious original tenets
> of economics, and is often confused with specific social agendas
> and value systems.
>
> Amen.
> TK