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.
“While I find the methodology highly suspect and the ethics abhorrent, my biggest objection to the analysis is that the author seems to be drawing a positive conclusion from a clearly null result.”
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.
“While I find the methodology highly suspect and the ethics abhorrent, my biggest objection to the analysis is that the author seems to be drawing a positive conclusion from a clearly null result.”