From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.econ,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: What is economics? (repost)
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:16:22 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <93Jan20.200943edt.227@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal) writes:
>
>Medical science does not attempt to answer such questions.  Neither
>should economics.  Such questions aren't interesting scientifically,
>and from a practical standpoint, the solution is to stop taking all
>those drugs and stop the self-destructive behaviour, at which point
>the situation may be simplified to the point where medical science is
>capable of determining what therapy (if any) would be helpful.

Precisely my point.  Social "scientists" need to know exactly what they
can and cannot do, and convince everybody to create a society in which
scientific analysis is valid, accurate and efficient.  Until then, they
cannot be called scientists as are doctors, biologists, physiologists,
meteorologists, geologists, as well as, of course physicists and chemists.

>Not all economists are so sensible.  Hence we see debates about
>whether rent controls might perhaps counteract the market distortions
>introduced by zoning regulations and special tax exemptions, debates
>about whether deliberately causing inflation may reduce unemployment
>by lowering real wages (of workers who presumably don't understand the
>policies they voted for), which don't go down naturally because of
>other governement policies that encourage workers not to accept wage
>reductions, debates about whether threatening to enact self-destructive 
>trade laws might possibly induce other countries to eliminate their
>own self-destructive legislation - the list of policies with
>convoluted justifications whose validity is anyone's guess goes on and
>on, with none of the advocates admitting the huge uncertainty
>involved. (Much of the uncertainty being due, in fact, to their previous 
>efforts, which have introduced numerous distortions in the economy whose 
>exact nature is beyond anyone's ability to judge.)

Again, right on target.  Our society is piling chaos on top of chaos until
it doesn't even know what's right and wrong anymore.  And the more
indecisive it is, the more chaos it will pile up.  Social "sciences"
should be telling society to take apart this chaos rather than engaging in
analyses of questionable validity/applicability.

>The fact that few economists denounce such arguments as the
>pseudo-scientific bullshit that they are is indeed an indictment of
>the profession.  It appears to be a simple case of intellectual
>dishonesty.

I think the real reason why the social "sciences" stagnate is political:
older "scientists" used to doing things the same way tend to recruit
grad students with the same interests and train them to be good only at
those things, so that, they too will have a vested interest in keeping
things the same.  (Imagine the loss of professional standing if your skills
are suddenly obsolete.)

THIS is why this whole business is so insideous.  If academians, who are
supposed to be the teacher of society, the seeker of truth, etc. become
so entrenched in self service (even if unconsciously), then what do we
have to look to for direction?  The social "scientists" have become a clique
who hide behind esoteric models and technical jargons AND a conspiracy of
silence (about their basic direction) to protect each other's jobs.

- Karl Wee
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc