>mfw economists actually think there is something scientific about what they do
>>7732998
Behavioral econ is pretty scientific. Observe people and things. Take samples. Make an inference. Make model to predict behaviour. About as sciency as you can get really.
>>7733013
is it falsifiable?
>>7733013
>actually believes this
The only thing scientific about econ is the applied math and quantitative models. The other part of it is shit. It's literally a glorified philosophy degree where you're told that anyone who disagrees with you is a fucking retard and should take econ 101. Econ also ignore other important things because they don't understand them. For instance, from a econ perspective industrial farming is great, there is so much room for profit. But for a chemist or biologist with real knowledge in that respective sub field knows that it isn't.
>>7733017
All models are falsifiable. The question is if the field accepts when one has been falsified. As an economist, I can say for a fact that it does not.
>>7733013
>>7733036
At most universities if you don't repeat free market rhetoric and ideology it will be detrimental to the grades you receive. Econ that isn't heavily math based is nonsense. Any program that has ideology worked into it is a bad econ program, and sadly majority of econ programs are like this.
>>7734534
This sounds like sour grapes from a liberal that doesn't agree with his econ professors. The free market "rhetoric" is there because that's what the evidence shows. We have mountains of papers proving the efficiency of free markets and liberal trade policies. We also have evidence for where free markets fail, such like with negative externalities (pollution) and positive externalities (education, vaccination). On the whole, though, the evidence favors free market policies for efficency and prosperity. Economics assumes these are the goals of a society, and builds models accordingly. If you feel these aren't the right goals, join one of the schools of economics that utilizes different assumptions. Without doing this, however, no study of economics is possible.
For me economics was like learning about kinetics before factoring in air resistance or friction. It's like there's always going to be some kind of error, and the only way to try to get useful predictions is to try to predict the error in modeling rather than have a perfect model.
>>7732998
Exactly. In fact, they're even worse than sociologists because they actually think they do something.
Not to mention all the morons that think using complex mathematics makes masturbation a science.
>>7734534
Can you imagine if the medical profession were as incompetent as economics?
>Uh yeah Mr Smith, you have cancer, my prescription is you should smoke more.
>>7734551
Econ professors will tell you that the market has decided oil and coal are the best energies, and will just ignore the fact that they receive billions in subsidies every year. Econ professors won't tell you that a free market would require the dismantlement of corporations before deregulation, but will explain to you why walmart, a corporation that can undersell products because of federal subsidies, can't afford to pay higher wages. It's a really inconsistent ideology. For instance, free marketers love to shit on people who want to eat organic and non gmo food. In a real free market, if that demographic exist then there should be a market for it, regardless of whether economist like it. Instead, it eventually teaches you to use pejorative terms(dumb librul, take econ 101, learn basic economics, hippy, etc.) against things they don't like. Some markets and industries are so obviously free market approved while others aren't for arbitrary reasons.
I repeat my point, econ that isn't math based is nonsense. Econ at universities teaches you that interpretations of data is right, when in reality all you can objectively say is right is math.
>>7734601
Or if chemistry and geology weren't "liberally biased"?
>Test Question: Explain this part of the climate cycle. "Lmao stupid liberal global warming is hoax fuk al gore" is also an acceptable answer
>>7734604
Stop shilling for reality, stupid liberal, something something the Jews etc.
>>7732998
There is, just not for the 99% of economists that regurgitate right-wing ideology because the textbooks say so.
I thought the great recession would begin a paradigm shift in economics but in many countries it just put the "free market" austerians into overdrive.
>>7732998
>Econ majors at my uni only have to take calc I
What a joke. Any stem major could interpret the data and relationships in micro econ, the 'hard' class for econ majors.
>>7734620
>I thought the great recession would begin a paradigm shift
I mean even then it shouldn't have if econ wants to be considered a science. As long as econ is a glorified political science/philosophy field it will never be scientific. Honestly econ programs should be done away with and it should be a concentration within mathematics degrees. That way these people would actually have to understand what they are talking about.
The only real econ is those who major in statistics. Those guys hate econ majors and the professors. Stats teaches you what Econ doesn't want you to learn. Economics is ideology based. It can be free market, Marxist, Faustian, or sand. But if they aren't making you take high level stats/math courses then its a glorified political science major. Sadly even the top schools practice this stupidity.
>>7734636
This is the difference between undergrad and postgrad econ. Unfortunately undergrad econ in most universities is pathetically easy (and often when it's hard it's for a stupid reason rather than being genuinely challenging). If they tightened it up they would have to accept a much smaller number of students, so instead they let all the idiots study econ. Turns out economics departments aren't any more immune from economics than the rest of us
>>7734649
Graduate Economics still suffers from this shit. Very few go on the path of John Nash. Too many kids want hte degree so they can write polarized opinions in government or industry. Even though the real economists are often math geeks who prove a lot of those opinions wrong in their published works. This is why statistics is the major for those interested in econ/finance.
>>7734649
Yeah, econ should be structured like a physics degree. That may sound weird, but physicist actually have to understand the relevant math to their field. Economics is literally like nah fuck that here's a bunch of anecdotes and opinionated case studies
>>7734655
You mean structured like a statistics degree. That's more relevant. If its like a physics degree then will get endless mouth breathers spouting theories.
>>7732998
>Taking econophysics with Gene Stanley
Literally the only context in which I think I can get some enjoyment out of economics is when it's modeled using principles from physics.
>>7734732
That actually exist?
>Implying empirical economics, behavioral econ, and econometrics isn't scientific.
Mental midgets on this board assume that predictive power = science, when the only qualification for science is make observations, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and consider the conclusions.
If predictive power is the only requirement for science, you'd have to throw out whole fields of theoretical physics and meteorology. For some reason, the idiots on this board are unwilling to do that, probably because their idea of science is predetermined and built on social ideas of science rather than rigorous definition.
>>7734877
>Econ major detected
Someone is buttblasted.
>>7732998
>mfw when someone one a noble peace prize for incorporating thermodynamics into economics
>>7734714
>spouting theories
You sound like that crazy uncle who yells it's just a theory when evolution comes up at a family function. Obviously I meant that econ majors should have to have the mathematical basis required of econ, similar to how physics, chem, and even biology majors have to have a basic understanding of the math behind their field. Honestly, I think universities should hand their econ departments over to their math departments.
>>7734877
>empirical economics, behavioral econ, and econometrics
If you read the thread pretty much everyone here thinks that is science. What pretty much everyone hates about econ is how nonscientific it can be with its conclusions on ideologies. Some econ programs are clearly more philosophy based in terms of discussing capitalism than based on mathematics and empirical evidence. I mean even my environmental sciences course wasn't as biased in econ. The relevant chemistry was actually discussed and didn't make huge logical leaps. On the other hand, econ at universities hand you a bunch of case studies and require you to repeat "the free market will fix it" if you want an A.
>>7732998
>le reddit amphibian
