R&D vs Economists, death struggle extraordinaire

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

ETA: i'm not having a dig at economics folk, i'm just wondering if that's the way the courses are taught, or something.

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

1) I haven't studied it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the knowledge involved in building a nuclear reactor are considerably more specific and in-depth than the kind of general economic principles being discussed in this thread. So studying nuclear reactor-building is a more focused skill and therefore one you'd need to extremely well-read on, rather than just having "glanced at a few articles", whereas talking about general economics is a tad simpler. That said...

2) Your average layperson will tend to think/care less about nuclear reactors than they will about the economy; very few people will offer opinions on the construction of a nuclear reactor (or any other kind of in-depth scientific principle), whereas most people assume that because they live and function with an economy, they understand it. Even with your limited knowledge of nuclear reactors, you'd presumably be a tad annoyed if some random person started assuming that they knew as much as (if not more than) you despite having studied it far less and being blatantly wrong about the subject. Such seems to be the case here (I assume. I don't know enough about economics to judge who's right here, but without wanting to offend Dec or anyone else, I'd tend to back Enda in an economic debate).

Nuclear scientists know how to run nuclear plants; people like me know nothing about science and don't attempt to argue with them.
Economists know how to run the economy; people like Ian think they can run it better.





















Do I smell burning? Or just a burn in general?

Cuckoo, much of it is the other way around. Nuclear physics is undisputable and non-emotional. Economics is indisputable in effect but not in a what's right kinda way. I can say with confidence that a high minimum wage will create unemployment. I cannot specifically state that that's right or wrong, unlike nuclear physics. People can make assertions, like say Liouville's assertion that it's not fair to open e.g. the Lecky and not the Hamilton (a more applicable situation is something like "low taxes for the wealthy is bad") and justify on ethical grounds rather than scientific and thus there exists potential for argument. Nuclear scientists all agree that, say, fission > fusion. Economists all agree that, say, minimum wage in excess is bad. Both are true. One can be argued in hand-waving, a "my mate Jimmy" kind of a way; the other cannot. For the most part, we're not up our own arses as we appear. That said I am fully aware of the problem of economists failing to see people as more than a variable. As one lecturer put it poignantly, and as (imo) people like Right_Side regularly miss, a wage is not a price - it's a living. That makes us appear fascist when in fact we're often as socially-minded as the gimps who want 70% tax rates. I was discussing this with my dad today actually. <rant>My dad was a shop stewart in his union once upon a time. Actually no, that's far too tangental. I'll stop now, I won't bore you all. Basically, the moral of the story is that he appreciates that low tax rates bring higher revenues which in the last couple of weeks delivered a new bus route within about 30 metres of my house. It's the stupid (and I hate to say it) unionisation effect that means it only runs twice a day and that the route is not even advertised on the website yet. G'wan, tomorrow I'll get the 66D at 7:50am (not if I don't go to bed soon I won't), see if you can find mention of it on the website. Actually, for God's sake, I went into a rant. Okay, bye.</rant>

As a matter of interest, Angry Banana, how do you think the college should invest itself to raise more funds/prestige/international recognition (or should we be wanting these things at all?)

cuckoo wrote:

I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor...

1. Showing a bit of lack of confidence in your abilities there cuckoo. Why shouldn't you build a nuclear power plant?

If you ARE building a nuclear power plant, give me a call, i've picked up a few helpful hints from the Simpsons... (hint 1: check all power-plant employees on their way home to check whether some uranium sticks have accidentally lodged in their clothing)


2. Why is Trinity teaching nuclear physics?

Angry Banana wrote:

Nuclear scientists know how to run nuclear plants;

Actually the vast majority of them wouldn't......

people like me know nothing about science and don't attempt to argue with them.

Given the right topic i doubt that.

Economists know how to run the economy; people like Ian think they can run it better.

not jumping for the bait....

Do I smell burning? Or just a burn in general?

Do i smell a pending banning? ooo i think i do.

Nuclear scientists all agree that, say, fission > fusion.

Hrmm i think you prove your own point, other way around

For the most part, we're not up our own arses as we appear.

Haha, couldn't have said it better myself.

Cuckoo wrote:

What i don't think i expressed myself very well is that there seems to be such a different ethos in the teaching between the 'dismal science' and the ones down in the Hamilton - in the Physics building we'd rarely (if ever) actually challenge anything a lecturer says and nothing is discussed, it's chalk and talk in the lecture theatres, then in the labs much of the time is 'hmmm, have i plugged this in the right way?'. That's the nature of the subjects, there's no arguing that 2+2=5.

Maybe arts block subjects, with the independent thought that is developed, is a more rounded education, and the sciences are a training?

I think its more like what enda says, for you to challange a phy lecturer on most stuff you'd really want to know your crap(which you really wouldn't without a phd n a few post doc's), where's i dunno not to sound insulting econ/arts can be a bit more wishy washy, its just not so clear cut...

Thats not to say the physists are right all the time, but gawd it does take alot of learning to even figure out some of the eqn's we do, nevermind to understand them and the theory to the point of challanging stuff....

Pet wrote:

Science is certainly more of "Shut up and listen to what I say because it's fact" than arts, so I guess we do miss out on the whole "think for yourself" aspect, or at least we get less of it than the arts heads do.

This is the problem that the social sciences run into when they try to auto-adopt philosophies of research like those of Karl Popper - there are far more definites in science as you say...

Angry Banana wrote:

Right so. People who run nuclear plants don't know how to run nuclear platns. Fair enough.

You never said the staff of nuclear power plants, you said nuclear physists. Which are entirely different things, there is quite probally a huge ammount of engineers who deal with alot of the running of those plants.

Nothing more to say, no?

I don't fancy having the exact same arguement over and over again.

For what, exactly? Can you not take it as well?

Take what? i never tried to annoy you enda, i actually resurected this thread agreeing with you for gods sake. And btw remember you've been banned for being an annoying ****e before.....intentionally trying to piss me off didn't get you very far.

Two points:
i) it was theoretical. It was not a specific point. Thus the ", say,". I could have used x and z but so what?
ii) If they don't know how to run nuclear plants would many advocate using a technology which is maybe 50 years away from proper exploitation??

What the **** are you on about? i'm confused honistly. I was making a light hearted comment to you having fission > fusion. Where clearly fusion is by far the preferred method of energy generation where possible.

I do recall reading that scientists said space travel was impossible because there was no force to propel from in a vacuum.

Where/when? i assume that some sort of old historic thing?

Add more unknowns to the equation and you have more debate. It's not insulting, it's realistic. Social sciences are basically living without the assumption in the natural sciences of unequivocal repitition. You know the sun will rise tomorrow. Imagine science without that certainty - that's the basic problem to be overcome in social science.

Actually enda if you did study physics or any of the sciences you'd find out there is alot of unknown's in things that we have to deal with once you reach the more complex levels that people have to goto in degree studies nothing is quite so certain...e.g. predicting solar flares......

Sparks wrote:

As to why there's little questioning in engineering or science classes as opposed to Arts courses, it's because there is a large body of knowlege and technique to be mastered before someone can understand the question, let alone posit a new answer. Some remarkable minds have done so at a very young age; but the majority of students do not understand the principles they are studying sufficiently to successfully question current theories for several years more than it takes to earn a primary degree; hence the existance of taught masters courses and PhD degrees, and why most of the PhD theses written are not revolutionary. There are exceptions; one nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for work done in a PhD thesis on atomic theory, a thesis which barely passed the chemist's viva when it was written as it had so little supporting data. But the vast majority are small additions to a huge body of knowlege. Any truly new work tends to be done by postdoctoral researchers and professors.

^ That's what i was trying to get at. From this science student's perspective it seems presumptious (and a tad arrogant) for economics undergrads to be arguing 'this is the way it should be done', with nary a 'imho'. I know how little i've truely grasped of what i'm trying to study.

I'm not pointing to this thread in particular, it's a vague sense i've been left with from reading many threads on this board.

So, is it all in my perception, or are economics students arrogant so and sos?

Ian wrote:

You never said the staff of nuclear power plants, you said nuclear physists. Which are entirely different things, there is quite probally a huge ammount of engineers who deal with alot of the running of those plants.

Oh, so you were being pedantic?

And btw remember you've been banned for being an annoying ****e before.....intentionally trying to piss me off didn't get you very far.

Despite what you think, I've never intentionally tried to piss you off and of course, the definition of what an annoying ****e is more in the realm of social sciences; it's all subjective .

I was making a light hearted comment to you having fission > fusion. Where clearly fusion is by far the preferred method of energy generation where possible.

Yep I know what you were saying. As you say yourself, you're confused by response. I was writing an example. I said something along the lines of "Let's say scientists think fission > fusion", for all intents and purposes I could have said "Let's say scientists think pigs > cows" or "1 > 3", the point was irrelevant. In fact it was of such non-consequence when I got up this morning I couldn't have recalled what example I gave. The point was to establish that what scientists agree on are, generally, not questioned by the public. This is not the case with what economists agree on.

Actually enda if you did study physics or any of the sciences you'd find out there is alot of unknown's in things that we have to deal with once you reach the more complex levels that people have to goto in degree studies nothing is quite so certain...e.g. predicting solar flares......

My example was representative, not an all inclusive dogmatic statement. There is far less certainty in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. To illustrate this point, I used the example of the sun rising. Think about the bigger picture. I know things often appear random in science, such as the emission of γ-rays (are ye impressed? . Man I hope I'm not confusing my nuclear emission and half-life decay. I really didn't enjoy LC Physics) but God don't play dice. People do. (I saw it on a documentary on BBC 2).

Sparks wrote:

You recall incorrectly; it was the New York Times in 1920 in response to a paper that had already been peer-reviewed and published the year before by Goddard. You also have to recall that it takes little to call yourself a scientist, but far much more to actually be one.

Nah, I'm not referring to a NY Times article. I'm going by my pessimest Physics teacher who told us something along the lines of "accepted science has been proved wrong for centuries. I'm sure there's something in this [LC Physics] book which is inaccurate." He then went on to talk about some prominent scientist (I can't remember his name, but it rung a bell, so it was certainly someone more known to the public at large than Goddard, who I've never heard of). But my point, in general, that if you put those little blue crystals we were given in JC Chemistry in water and put them over a Bunsen tomorrow, they'll do the exact same thing as they will today. This does not apply to something like economics. Yes, I know that my example is too simplified and that modern science is not as accepted fact and so on; but the logic is perfectly applicable.

cuckoo wrote:

^ That's what i was trying to get at. From this science student's perspective it seems presumptious (and a tad arrogant) for economics undergrads to be arguing 'this is the way it should be done', with nary a 'imho'. I know how little i've truely grasped of what i'm trying to study.

I'm not pointing to this thread in particular, it's a vague sense i've been left with from reading many threads on this board.

So, is it all in my perception, or are economics students arrogant so and sos?

I don't know the details of science courses, but detailed basics (yes, such a thing exists!) of economics can be taught in two years. Take me for example, I've studied economics now for four years including the Leaving Cert. I have yet to branch out into econometrics, investment analysis, the economics of less developed countries, transport economics, food economics, industrial economics, environmental economics. These are all courses available in the sophister schedule; and this is before we get into hybrids like econophysics, neuroeconomics or something extremely specific like Marta Zieba's doctorate of Estimation of demand and production functions for German theatre and orchestral music or Dr. Jacco Thijssen's The Effect of Information Streams on Capital Budgeting Decisions paper.

Nobody would argue with Marta on German theatre of Jacco on general equilibrium effects and contingent claim valuation of financial assets. However economics is, in my opinion, the most important science. It has the most profound effects on people's lives because of its spectrum. One might said that the field of medicine is more important than economics, but medicine cannot properly be delievered without a viable economic system in place. Indeed, people cannot study economics if they're not alive; but the effect is far less pertinent to the development of economics than vice versa. As economics is the most tangible academic field, played out almost entirely by players whose employers are the public at large, it is suspect to the most inspection/opinion/debate/contribution of the average Joe. Thus, in my opinion, it's the least specialised field in public practice. Nobody cares (politically) if the civil service pick C++ administration software over a Java application; that's the preserve of the experts. Everybody cares, and rightly so, about the economic policy adopted by the government; and they kick and scream about it. This has the effect of dilluting suggestions by experts. I can tell you now, as can every economics nerd, that a more academically-based economic policy as opposed to public-based economic policy would deliver long term results. The fact that economic analysis is so diluted in public debate has a multiplier effect on this; and make economists cry all the harder.

Let me give you an example, in pure economic terms, of the 24-hour opening of the library. Let's assume that opening the library 24-hours is a good thing, that there is no awful administrative mountain to overcome first, and that there is no threat of the precedent of price extending to, say, complete library access.

To fund the access, it can be done by private funding (charging €2 to access the library after 10pm) or publically, increasing the income upper-level tax rate by 1% to 43%. (Note this is analgous to any public v private debate; and I know that it wouldn't take a 1% increase in income tax to fund a library - it's theoretical).

The main positive effecta of funding the opening privately are:
i) The library opens
ii) The system won't be abused. I regularly take extra-curricular (read JS and SS) books out of the library and never read them. This is wasteful, it stops the book being available to JS and SS students. I would not do this if there was a €1 charge, I would only take books out that I needed. The same applies to desk space in the library. Although supply would far exceed demand in a 24 hour library (well in our big libraries anyway), the principle applies to something slightly more tangible like road-space or water.

The negative effect of private funding is:
i) It costs the individual, and would exclude some people from its use.
[Note: they would not be able to attend the 24 hour library anyway and grant systems/social welfare can eliminate this problem (but our wonderful government aren't exactly effective with social welfare)].

-

The positive effect of public funding would be:
i) The library is open to all

The negative effects:
i) Tax rates increase -> people willing to work less -> (at certain levels) tax take lowers; or at least people have less money to spend in general
ii) It is open to abuse (see above)
iii) The increased government spending leads to an overall increase in the price level of the economy
iv) Government tend to be inefficient at administration
v) Increased government spending induces a greater trade deficit
vi) Increased government spending can lead to higher unemployment in more situations than it leads to lower unemployment
vii) It is reliant upon the state of the economy, if there's an exogenous (or, indeed, endogenous) shock it's bye bye library; this is less prevalent when privately funded
iix) Un-independent; the library exists at the whim of the current government.

When I was in Leaving Cert my World View (God, that's really a buzzword of late ain't it?) was very well represented by Andrew_83's post in another thread. Since studying economics on a more broad scale (incidentally it's effectively studying general equilibrium rather than partial equilibrium - but only my homies will get the lingo) I appreciate the right-wing thinking of a small state being bigger than a big state. With the four years of trying to apply economic theory (well substantiated, before somebody says it's all rhetoric) to the Irish political scene, I, like most economics nerds, start crying at some commonly held views and policy. Like SSIA's. Why God, why? Bloody tax on poverty. And yes, on public spending and public return. I've become convinced that many standard economists' dogma is dead right but that the public view holds precedence in democracy.

....

But my point, in general, that if you put those little blue crystals we were given in JC Chemistry in water and put them over a Bunsen tomorrow, they'll do the exact same thing as they will today. This does not apply to something like economics. Yes, I know that my example is too simplified and that modern science is not as accepted fact and so on; but the logic is perfectly applicable.

Actually your logic is badly faulty. The science behind the blue crystals is not what they'll do; that is a fact of nature. The science is explaining what's going on, why it's going on, and maybe predicting what'll happen next, and of course that will change as we learn more about the process. Economics has exactly the same setup. Economies run, that's a fact. They either fail or succeed, it has nothing to do with economic theory, which is an explaination of why they succeed or fail, and how to make them succeed.

Also, physics is not being proven wrong every year as such. We don't throw everything out with the postulation of a new theory. Newton's theory fit realtiy better than that which came before him; Einstein's theory fit better than Newton's; and so on. It's a case of successive approximation, not trial and error. You'll note that we still teach Newton in schools. Are his equations wrong? Absolutely, yes. But they were so good an estimate that in any situation you are likely to personally encounter (unless you habitually calculate and then measure the orbit of Mercury), they are indistinguishable from the real values. Until you get to relativistic speeds or quantum scales, Newton and Einstein's maths give the same results.

Economics, on the other hand, seems to progress more by trial and error, discarding theories and replacing them completely, than by successive approximations to an optimal theory. That's not science, that's just guesstimation.

One might said that the field of medicine is more important than economics, but medicine cannot properly be delievered without a viable economic system in place.

Ha! You can argue all you like; without engineers, you'll be arguing while starving, naked and ill in a cave somewhere.

Angry Banana wrote:

...
So what am I trying to say? I suppose it's something along the lines of "trust us". Freedom Instituters call me "Comrade"; the PD's say I'm "definitely in the socialist wing of FG"; [strike]Europerson calls me "mother";[/strike] and yet I'm certainly to the right of most people in terms of how equity should be achieved in an economy - as are most economists. Maybe we're just frustrated that we don't get to play a bigger role in such an important field .

I can't trust you because i can't understand your prose.

I'm being honest here, the convulted sentences have me completely lost.

****, I completely missed a great zing opportunity. Oh well, you can't win 'em all Ronan.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

Oh dear ;_; *aghast*

In fairness, it isn't exactly common knowlege. I wouldn't expect, for example, a medical doctor to know who the american father of rocket science was.

The "The point was to establish that what scientists agree on are, generally, not questioned by the public. This is not the case with what economists agree on." quote though, that's a bit more off, and has been ever since Oppenheimer.

Sparks I think you're over simplifying certain aspects of economics, or over complicating certain aspects of physics.

If a physicist tests a theory and it seems to have some explanatory power, then further testing can prove if indeed it does account for the behaviour it is intended to model. If an economist comes up with a theory to explain a certain event, it cannot be entirely proved or disproved by further testing. The economy may look the same, but there are a huge range of both known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. It's a terribly simplistic (and probably inaccurate) example, but think of trying to calculate a value for gravity without being able to tell if you're still on the same planet as the last time you took your measurements, as well as not having a clue whether or not Mars has moved in next door for a summer break. You're initial theory may be correct but circumstances have changed, or you might be totally wrong but something unseen is actually causing facts to go along with your theory.

I approach economics as a tool of politics (not political science), and policy formation, not as a complete science in itself. John Nash said, (paraphrasing here), if a body of knowledge puts science on the end of its name, then it's most likely not a science, if it doesn't then it may well be. That said, I don't think economics is the same as a natural science, nor should it be.