... economists sh1tt1ng on other fields of social science. Don't you realize that every field of social science has been useless?
The field of economics has really only started to make a real contribution to the world when economists started doing experiments in development. Yet policymakers of several advanced industrialized countries have already been doing that for decades.
Interestingly, the most useless subfields of economics is the most mathematical.
One would think that the hubris of physicists would be lessened by the fact that the most arrogant field of physics, particle physics, has made negligible progress since 1980, however much you jump up and down and act like the Higgs boson is a significant discovery.
One would think that the hubris of physicists would be lessened by the fact that the most arrogant field of physics, particle physics, has made negligible progress since 1980, however much you jump up and down and act like the Higgs boson is a significant discovery.
I'm a string theorist and I've never claimed that my field is superior nor even useful. But that's not how economists behave.
... economists sh1tt1ng on other fields of social science. Don't you realize that every field of social science has been useless?
The field of economics has really only started to make a real contribution to the world when economists started doing experiments in development. Yet policymakers of several advanced industrialized countries have already been doing that for decades.
Interestingly, the most useless subfields of economics is the most mathematical.
why do physicists not reveal the replication rates of their experiments? What are you trying to hide?
... economists sh1tt1ng on other fields of social science. Don't you realize that every field of social science has been useless?
The field of economics has really only started to make a real contribution to the world when economists started doing experiments in development. Yet policymakers of several advanced industrialized countries have already been doing that for decades.
Interestingly, the most useless subfields of economics is the most mathematical.why do physicists not reveal the replication rates of their experiments? What are you trying to hide?
The point I'm making is physicists are not arrogant about what our field knows and what it hasn't yet known.
But economists have taken to their research with such a high level of methodological religiosity that the majority of economics graduate students actually believe the solution to "do better economics" is to take more math.
Have economists actually stopped to ask themselves whether universal laws of human behavior actually exist and whether they should really be researching effective policy using statistics rather than to keep coming up with newer, less meaningful, axioms of human behavior.
OP, HRM economists here. I'm sure economists understand the limitations of our methods and more economists are open to an interdisciplinary approach than you think.
The majority of economists who make little to no contribution in the LRM departments are actually obsessed with math for good reason—economic theory is the only type of research their departments can enable them to do.
One would think that the hubris of physicists would be lessened by the fact that the most arrogant field of physics, particle physics, has made negligible progress since 1980, however much you jump up and down and act like the Higgs boson is a significant discovery.
Yeah. particle 'phenomenology' has currently been stagnant, but it's just a small portion of modern physics even within the high-energy physics.
Look this article : https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.00101
Supersymmetric QFT to calculate strongly-coupled system, Gravity/Gauge duality (aka holographic principle) originated by AdS/CFT correspondence, Swampland program are now flourishing. These examples are just theoretical high-energy physics. Not to mention the other physical fields are so wide.
I have been browsing here and see many guys constantly complain about the other social science and ignorance to economics from outsiders (public, politicians, press etc). But it seems that you guys are totally same when it comes to modern physics.
As a physics major who moved to econ, I hate physicists because they think the work they do is so much more important than other fields. It’s not in 99% of cases. Unless you’re a 160+ IQ genius, most of you end up in a dead end laboratory job where you get paid a salary that most accountants can get easily straight out of college. Your research is so dry and uninteresting that I would rather stab myself than read an experimental physics paper.
As a physics major who moved to econ, I hate physicists because they think the work they do is so much more important than other fields. It’s not in 99% of cases. Unless you’re a 160+ IQ genius, most of you end up in a dead end laboratory job where you get paid a salary that most accountants can get easily straight out of college. Your research is so dry and uninteresting that I would rather stab myself than read an experimental physics paper.
I'm not a physicists and even I find it hilarious that an economist is questioning the value of a hard science, when nothing of value has actually come of economics that is not just formalized common sense.
As a physics major who moved to econ, I hate physicists because they think the work they do is so much more important than other fields. It’s not in 99% of cases. Unless you’re a 160+ IQ genius, most of you end up in a dead end laboratory job where you get paid a salary that most accountants can get easily straight out of college. Your research is so dry and uninteresting that I would rather stab myself than read an experimental physics paper.
An experimental high energy physics paper is like, 4-8 pages long. It may be boring, but at least it's boring and short, unlike a good many econ papers, which are boring and long.
As a physics major who moved to econ, I hate physicists because they think the work they do is so much more important than other fields. It’s not in 99% of cases. Unless you’re a 160+ IQ genius, most of you end up in a dead end laboratory job where you get paid a salary that most accountants can get easily straight out of college. Your research is so dry and uninteresting that I would rather stab myself than read an experimental physics paper.An experimental high energy physics paper is like, 4-8 pages long. It may be boring, but at least it's boring and short, unlike a good many econ papers, which are boring and long.
And meaningless. At least any physics paper would've contributed something everlasting.