What they said is actually totally reasonable. People (particularly economists) treat economics as though it’s a hard science akin to physics or chemistry, but it’s a soft science. They gave David Card a nobel in economics for figuring out a way to actually test hypotheses some of the time. In 2021.
Econ is math explaining how anything affects markets, it uses actual logic to explain changes. Give me some examples of how theology uses math to explain anything
Pascal used probability/expected-value reasoning to argue that wagering on God is rational.
Gödel formally encoded an argument for God’s existence in higher-order modal logic.
Plantinga uses modal logic to formulate the ontological argument.
Bayes’ theorem used to argue for the existence of God by Richard Swinburne.
People use math to justify things. That is not the same as proving something. Show me cases where econs use math to prove something intrinsic to economies.
Econ 101. Law of supply and demand. Algebra and coordinate geometry. Nearly every concept taught in econ is a mathematical breakdown of why something happens in the economy.
That’s exactly the distinction I’m asking about. Algebra and coordinate geometry can represent supply and demand, and they can prove what follows if the model’s assumptions hold. They do not prove that the model accurately describes an actual economy.
For example, from assumed supply and demand functions, you can mathematically prove where their curves intersect. But mathematics alone cannot prove that real consumers have that demand curve, that real producers have that supply curve, that the relevant variables were held constant, or that the resulting equilibrium is what caused the observed market price.
“Price rises when demand increases, ceteris paribus” is a model-derived prediction. Whether real markets actually behave that way, under what conditions, and how accurately… all of that is empirical questions. Data can support, falsify, estimate, or justify the model’s applicability but the algebra cannot prove its correspondence to reality.
This is in stark contrast to physics. It makes economics look more like theology. Although, that’s probably still a loaded statement.
Regardless, “nearly every concept in Econ 101 has a mathematical breakdown” doesn’t answer my question. I’m specifically asking for an example where the mathematics proves that the mathematical model itself is an accurate description of the real economy, rather than merely proving consequences within the model.
And if the answer is that economics establishes that correspondence empirically rather than mathematically, then that’s precisely the distinction I was making.
it was a law based on studying supply and demand, how they interact and how that affects price and can be used for prediction. You are putting the chicken before the egg
The global financial crisis was a huge surprise to most economists and is basically the #1 example of the field not having any predictive power, something you generally want from a hard science.
Sure. I guess this falls under ‘natural experiments’ which is what David Card got his nobel for, figuring out how to test hypotheses some of the time. Now try and do peer review on that result.
Economics is the social control mechanism that filled the void vacated by religion after the enlightenment.
Finance replaced mythology.
Banks and financial institutions replaced churches and cathedrals.
Economists replaced the clergy.
GDP replaced God.
Mathematics is the foundation of reality, accounting is a selective subset of mathematics.
Economics is functionally religion that wears a tattered robe of finance which is patched with parts of accounting that economists find useful to support the doctrine of their particular model.
Like religion, economics can prove useful for a society, but similarly it has no intrinsic legitimacy imposing influence on or over those who don’t willingly and non-coercively subscribe to its narrative.
Except in terms of predictive power it’s just barely more successful than random chance. As a discipline it’s still largely in its most primitive stage, and still full of unproven and largely hypothetical assumptions that amount to little more than idle musings and superstitions. It’s so full of holes it’s just slightly more rigorous than pseudoscience. Perhaps in 100 years it will develop into a more respectable discipline, but at this stage it’s at best a tool for short term modelling and post hoc analysis.
in my experience, Econ education is the study of a single economic system - capitalism. Did they ever discuss alternative socioeconomic systems or simply say ‘state ownership = bad’?
You studied capitalism because you live in a capitalist society. Did you major in econ? If not, you likely wouldn’t have been taught much more than what is relevant to your life.
No not my major - my experience was just econ 101 but I like reading about economics in my free time, and it seemed like econ 101 at my US university should have been called Capitalism 101. My comment was moreso to see if that changes at later stages in the economics-major program.
It’s the same with History class in high school, they’re going to teach you more about your country than others until you dive deeper academically because the base knowledge they want to teach is stuff that would be relevant to you. I didn’t major in econ but it was mandatory all 4 years. Once you get into macroeconomics they start discussing international econ more.
There seems to be some huge misconception that economics is what causes problems when economics is actually the diagnostic tool to explain what’s going on. The same backwards logic as people who think the inflation rate is set by a government or bank and controls how much prices should go up as opposed to a number calculated based on how much prices have gone up.
Economics is not a hard science. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend it’s all math and logic. It includes attempting to predict human behavior, you can’t do that with just math.
“Do people think we’re currently in a recession” is actually used by economists as a recession indicator.
I think you may need to simply define the terms used after “calculus.” I just did two things that oddly coincide with having read this comment. One, skipped a YT video that promised to simply explain calculus, and two, commented elsewhere:
"One thing that really scares me about the fall of the empire of my birth is, even if a revolution succeeded, not only who would be in charge, but would they actually understand large scale administration, distribution, logistics, of goods and finance? We’ve allowed ourselves to be so proudly uneducated for si long, because “There are professionals for that.” Well, yes, but honest ones?“
Edit, because I should add, an honest one that actually will be appointed to the task.
This isn’t true, though. Economics is a material study of social relations that objectively exist and are reinforced by how we produce and distribute. Bourgeois economics tends towards idealism, turning it from materialism. We cannot simply “conjure” a new system. Systems are material processes, and so we must take a scientific, rather than utopian, approach.
Economics, as an intellectual discipline, is closer to theology than physics. Its power is proportional to the belief it commands.
Finance is an arbitrary subset of mathematics, cherry picked by the owning class, and applied as their supporting mythology.
It’s entirely imaginary, which means alternatives are only ever a conjuring away.
Brother, you are high as a kite
What they said is actually totally reasonable. People (particularly economists) treat economics as though it’s a hard science akin to physics or chemistry, but it’s a soft science. They gave David Card a nobel in economics for figuring out a way to actually test hypotheses some of the time. In 2021.
Econ is math explaining how anything affects markets, it uses actual logic to explain changes. Give me some examples of how theology uses math to explain anything
People use math to justify things. That is not the same as proving something. Show me cases where econs use math to prove something intrinsic to economies.
Econ 101. Law of supply and demand. Algebra and coordinate geometry. Nearly every concept taught in econ is a mathematical breakdown of why something happens in the economy.
That’s exactly the distinction I’m asking about. Algebra and coordinate geometry can represent supply and demand, and they can prove what follows if the model’s assumptions hold. They do not prove that the model accurately describes an actual economy.
For example, from assumed supply and demand functions, you can mathematically prove where their curves intersect. But mathematics alone cannot prove that real consumers have that demand curve, that real producers have that supply curve, that the relevant variables were held constant, or that the resulting equilibrium is what caused the observed market price.
“Price rises when demand increases, ceteris paribus” is a model-derived prediction. Whether real markets actually behave that way, under what conditions, and how accurately… all of that is empirical questions. Data can support, falsify, estimate, or justify the model’s applicability but the algebra cannot prove its correspondence to reality.
This is in stark contrast to physics. It makes economics look more like theology. Although, that’s probably still a loaded statement.
Regardless, “nearly every concept in Econ 101 has a mathematical breakdown” doesn’t answer my question. I’m specifically asking for an example where the mathematics proves that the mathematical model itself is an accurate description of the real economy, rather than merely proving consequences within the model.
And if the answer is that economics establishes that correspondence empirically rather than mathematically, then that’s precisely the distinction I was making.
it was a law based on studying supply and demand, how they interact and how that affects price and can be used for prediction. You are putting the chicken before the egg
In the bible one plus one plus one equals one or three or something.
Sounds like a lie that Satan would want me to believe
The holy trinity is one god the exists as three separate people.
It’s in the bible.
1+1=6, got it
Give me examples of economists coming up with hypotheses and then building experiments to test them.
The 2008 financial crisis?
The global financial crisis was a huge surprise to most economists and is basically the #1 example of the field not having any predictive power, something you generally want from a hard science.
I mean, that’s an experimental result. It’s not a positive result, but it is a result.
Sure. I guess this falls under ‘natural experiments’ which is what David Card got his nobel for, figuring out how to test hypotheses some of the time. Now try and do peer review on that result.
Where’s the flaw in my comment?
I went to uni for business admin with a concentration in finance and I disagree with all of it.
Econ is a social science that studies the effects decisions have on a market, it uses math to explain it. Econ is not the cause, econ is the study of.
Finance is not an arbitrary subset of mathematics. It’s calculus, derivatives, and polynomial models that predict and explain.
You may as well call math and logic imaginary
Economics is the social control mechanism that filled the void vacated by religion after the enlightenment.
Finance replaced mythology. Banks and financial institutions replaced churches and cathedrals. Economists replaced the clergy. GDP replaced God.
Mathematics is the foundation of reality, accounting is a selective subset of mathematics.
Economics is functionally religion that wears a tattered robe of finance which is patched with parts of accounting that economists find useful to support the doctrine of their particular model.
Like religion, economics can prove useful for a society, but similarly it has no intrinsic legitimacy imposing influence on or over those who don’t willingly and non-coercively subscribe to its narrative.
Except in terms of predictive power it’s just barely more successful than random chance. As a discipline it’s still largely in its most primitive stage, and still full of unproven and largely hypothetical assumptions that amount to little more than idle musings and superstitions. It’s so full of holes it’s just slightly more rigorous than pseudoscience. Perhaps in 100 years it will develop into a more respectable discipline, but at this stage it’s at best a tool for short term modelling and post hoc analysis.
What do you think i mean when I say predictive models. Like what do you assume is predicted.
in my experience, Econ education is the study of a single economic system - capitalism. Did they ever discuss alternative socioeconomic systems or simply say ‘state ownership = bad’?
You studied capitalism because you live in a capitalist society. Did you major in econ? If not, you likely wouldn’t have been taught much more than what is relevant to your life.
No not my major - my experience was just econ 101 but I like reading about economics in my free time, and it seemed like econ 101 at my US university should have been called Capitalism 101. My comment was moreso to see if that changes at later stages in the economics-major program.
It’s the same with History class in high school, they’re going to teach you more about your country than others until you dive deeper academically because the base knowledge they want to teach is stuff that would be relevant to you. I didn’t major in econ but it was mandatory all 4 years. Once you get into macroeconomics they start discussing international econ more.
There seems to be some huge misconception that economics is what causes problems when economics is actually the diagnostic tool to explain what’s going on. The same backwards logic as people who think the inflation rate is set by a government or bank and controls how much prices should go up as opposed to a number calculated based on how much prices have gone up.
It uses math sometimes.
Economics is not a hard science. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend it’s all math and logic. It includes attempting to predict human behavior, you can’t do that with just math.
“Do people think we’re currently in a recession” is actually used by economists as a recession indicator.
I’m not saying it’s a hard science, im disagreeing with it being closer to theology than physics, that’s absurd
I think you may need to simply define the terms used after “calculus.” I just did two things that oddly coincide with having read this comment. One, skipped a YT video that promised to simply explain calculus, and two, commented elsewhere:
"One thing that really scares me about the fall of the empire of my birth is, even if a revolution succeeded, not only who would be in charge, but would they actually understand large scale administration, distribution, logistics, of goods and finance? We’ve allowed ourselves to be so proudly uneducated for si long, because “There are professionals for that.” Well, yes, but honest ones?“
Edit, because I should add, an honest one that actually will be appointed to the task.
Derivatives is a part of calculus and polynomial models are algebraic equations with multiple variables, is that what you’re asking?
This isn’t true, though. Economics is a material study of social relations that objectively exist and are reinforced by how we produce and distribute. Bourgeois economics tends towards idealism, turning it from materialism. We cannot simply “conjure” a new system. Systems are material processes, and so we must take a scientific, rather than utopian, approach.