Skip to main content

View Diary: Nobel Prize for Economics = neo-liberal swinefest UPDATED (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is more a reply to some of the comments (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies, native, parse this

    than it is to the diary.

    No, economics is not a science - at this time. It is more on the order of alchemy, which was the necessary precursor to chemistry and a broad range of other sciences. The medieval alchemist was not a scientist, but tended to keep careful records of what he did, regardless of the causes he assigned to the phenomena he studied.

    Those experiments and records, no matter how oddly attributed, were one of the main bases that science later developed on top of.

    We may never have a science of economics - or perhaps not until we have a solid scientific understanding of human thought, if that's possible. But if we do, it will be because of the work of these people, in all levels of the multidimensional spectra that currently constitute economics.

    Condemn the people who blindly follow them, for whatever reason, but don't condemn their attempt to understand an inherent part of our society, however off the mark it may seem at the moment.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:09:23 AM PDT

    •  Alchemy was more poetic than economics is, (3+ / 0-)

      with a far more open-ended field of inquiry. I don't see how the study of economics can be anywhere near as fruitful. As currently practiced, economics is so narrowly focused it excludes factors that would properly be axiomatic, if it were to be a true science. It seems to be conceived of more as a tool than as a quest for knowledge.

      •  The quest to be able to convert lead to gold (0+ / 0-)

        was also rather narrowly focused. [and an economic issue, iirc ;)] That didn't stop the information gained in the process from ending up being valuable - once there was enough of it, over a wide enough range of trials.

        I can't, quite frankly, imagine what a science of economics would end up looking like, nor what axioms it might include. That's the point.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site