If physics is more of a science than economics, it's probably because the latter has a more difficult subject matter.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: ALI KADRI [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20394] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Physics and economics > > > I read that again, it does sound doctrinaire like. > Oops. > > I would have thought that the problem was in math > altogether, statistics included, whether we be in it > or outside of it. The thing is the random component is > simply an added variable like when we add time, it > does not take us away from determinism. but i need to > think about this a little. > > I did a some work on this long ago. A very good > article was written by Oscar Lange on the topic, I > still have it. He argued along side physicists that > economics was a science, he did a good job, but his > infatuation with neoclassical economics killed it. For > a Marxist, I think the whole notion of science follows > a different route. > > but anyways, since the kids are in bed, the question > boils down to this: > -the subject matter of social science thinks for > itself and that of physics does not. > -developments in physics are fast, in economics short. > -laws in physics more precise and they tend to > approach a universal; in economics, laws are murky, > and bound by the human convention of time etc. the > differences are many. > > Yes, they are different and they have to be, one is > social and the other is natural. but do these > conditions make one a science and the other a fiction? > that depends on the definition of science. > if it is about being more accurate, then why should > physics be more accurate given that the subject matter > of economics is more elusive; > if it is about speed of development, then the same > argument holds, plus some others, I am sure. > So why not argue that economics is more science than > physics, and by this I do not mean neo classical > economics but Marxian economics or that which is born > in opposition to the ideological rubbish eschewed by > the mouthpieces of capital. > the argument can be made simple: if science develops > under the yoke of dominant ideology, then that which > is subjected to scrutiny from the opposing ideology > should be developing more knowledge. In physics the > production of knowledge is so tightly controlled and > nearly all physicists enjoy some hum drum paid middle > class position. that is not true of economics. since > it instantly affects daily lives; and when the > practice of ideologically produced rubbish is queried > by down and out intellectuals, ergo, economics is the > better and faster science. > Now that is too plain and maybe not too convincing, > because we do not have a definition of science yet; > so let us say that science is what allows us to go > beyond the surface appearance of things to explain how > they are. maybe Marx's definition in caricature form, > it is to avoid the jargon, it does get heavy > sometimes. > > so now which is allowing us to see more clearly into > things as established by practice and interpersonal > experience, recall the nature of the subject matter in > question is e.g. quarks and or capitalism. > > to begin with the obvious none can be explained fully, > more accurately, there is no standard benchmark to say > that we know more about economics than we do about > physics. so which is the science? > > the fact that the nomenclatura does not accept that > there is exploitation and social classes and > imperialism, in economic science, these concepts > remain nonetheless part and parcel of that discipline. > In the same way that nearby CERN physicists do not > like inflation theory (physical inflation), does not > make the latter devoid of reason. > in either instances, the impact of a rising idea is > indelible and sooner or later an additional layer > beneath the surface will come uncovered. > > That either is science has to be traced back to the > end of the thing in itself thesis, that there are no a > priori logical concepts. Then the question was asked > is the universe knowable, not can it be fully known, > if the answer is yes, then both are science. > > Then it was said what we know is true relative what > we will know or to what we will never know. I guess > practice makes perfect. Maybe I need to practice too, > this an awfully difficult subject. > > > > > > > > --- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 11:53 PM 12/4/01 -0800, you wrote: > > >Then the laws of probability should correspond to > > >human behaviour in as much as they do to the > > behaviour > > >of inanimate matter, and they do not. > > > > some human behavior is predictable, though much of > > it is not. The big > > problem with statistics as applied to human behavior > > is that we're inside > > the system being studied... > > > > >Econometricians call that time incoherence. this is > > >not only a question of degree, it is of a > > fundamental > > >difference in substance between social and natural > > >science, hence, the failure of math and spastics to > > >afford an adequate explanation of human processes. > > > > I like that typo! > > JD > > > > > > NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com >
