• anar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    See, replication isn’t a problem if your entire field is vibes-based. A lot of economics papers I come across are like that (so much so that I am close to writing off the entire decipline as unscientific). The diff in the level of rigour you would see in e.g. particle physics versus in economics is baffling.

    It used to be psychology as well but I am noticing they are more than aware of their replication crisis lately. Whereas economics feels pseudoscience with a maths clothing.

    • Elise@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I read about the Stanford prison experiments being widely cited, and it likely has influenced our culture in some way.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that a lot out economics relies on “models” that estimate the price of milk by assuming a frictionless cow on an infinite plane. There’s a distinct lack of attempts to actually test the models against reality, or simply study reality itself (the reason likely being that when people do study reality instead of models, the progressive economists most often turn out to be right)

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem is that a lot out economics relies on “models” that estimate the price of milk by assuming a frictionless cow on an infinite plane

        Reminds me of a great sarcastic comment I heard in a “Well, there’s your problem” podcast. It was along the lines of “Turns out that, if gas was free, contrary to what economists would have you believe, people wouldn’t be consuming infinite amounts of it”

      • Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also the fact that the economy is managed can mean things aren’t always testable. If you think there’s going to be a recession based on models and you prevent that by using policy, did you really prevent the recession or was it never going to happen?

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        where’s that SMBC comic that says economic models suck so bad because they’re created by the sort of person who gets a business degree

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Economics is tarot card reading for right wing pseudointellectuals, just like The Stock Market being the same as astrological horoscopes for the same crowd

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not all of it. But that’s what a lot of the mainstream has become.

          For a better analysis than I can give, check out Unlearning Economics on YouTube. He’s an econ PhD doing a lot of excellent work dissecting the problems with the field as a whole.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The real issue is that anyone can come up with an economic model, but politicians and public figures get to pick and choose the one that fits their beliefs most closely. The model can be crap and barely hold up beyond an ELIF narrative about why it’s true, and people will base their careers around believing it

        I think there are good economic models out there, it’s just the convenient ones that are spread… Ones that don’t generally hold up against actual observation

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The level of rigour you would see in e.g. particle physics versus in economics is baffling.

      There’s no economic equivalent of a LHC, though. For a while, the high end physics really was confined to a blackboard and predicated on people’s faith in mathematics. And you can build convincing economic models rooted in a reliable mathematical formula. You can even back your way into a convincing mathematical model by compiling economic data and building a model around that.

      Whereas economics feels pseudoscience with a maths clothing.

      The economist Richard Wolff often comments on the curious distinction between Economics and Business as fields of study.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Na mate, you can’t replicate a single study. There’s never a chance to control all your environment and redo everything exactly the same. Even if you did, people get older and arguably wiser so they behave difference under the same situation.

        In the mean time, all electrons are interchangeable and you can pick as many as you want and put in the condition that you want.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    isn’t there a problem with lack of replication in the scientific world though? i feel like replication experiments don’t get grants easily so people are more likely to pursue one time experiments.

  • powerofm@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are a couple great video essays by Bobby Broccoli on YouTube where they dive into the history of people who faked human cloning and discovering a new element