Physicists don't get much respect either. On topics so esoteric that nobody outside the field understands or cares, there's no reason to dispute an expert, but that lack of dispute doesn't indicate agreement, just indifference.
On topics that have some bearing on popular topics (say, age and origin of the universe, where it contradicts religious writings), I think you'll find that there's a lot of second-guessing by "the masses".
nunyabidness
· 3 years ago
Good gracious - talk about arrogance! Aren't you SO glad, Don, that you're one of those "fortunate highbrows", instead of someone who actually (GASP) ---works--- for a living. Thank God you don't have to sully your hands with real labor.
Robin Hanson
· 3 years ago
Good thing I didn't try to claim my observation was original; in this as in so many cases, I find myself in ritual rediscovery of ancient truths. :)
George
· 3 years ago
Dear Don,
Excuse me, but which economic experts am I supposed to listen to when a professor from George Mason asserts the value of a free market and a professor from Harvard asserts the superiority of socialism over the market place? One reason that social scientists have a problem is that all kinds of views seem to hold sway and no objective means seems to have arisen which adjudicates right from wrong. When there is objective evidence that can universally be shown to support one view and disprove another, then the situation will change.
Renato Drumond
· 3 years ago
I think that the great difference between social sciences and the other fields of investigation is that nobody cares if you reject or not theories about Chemistry or Astronomy.
The expansion of democracy makes the opinion of each individual about certain things important. But it is irrational: why I should know more about economics or political philosophy than the reproduction of birds?
The voter cares more about the result than pratical questions about how to attain certain goals. Maybe it's more important to convince the intelectual elite than the average joe. Consider the approach of Hayek when he founded the Mont Pelerin society.
Russell Nelson
· 3 years ago
Yeah, the problem with economics is that people confuse it for finance, and ... well, everybody can sum up their restaurant bill, right?
Also, economics is newer (e.g. Coasian analysis of the firm, and he's still alive) and is still actively being revised. Unfortunately, some people with PhDs in economics are not actively revising their grad-school conclusions.
delurking
· 3 years ago
Sorry, but I don't see it. The name Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was changed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging because people simply wouldn't believe physicists when they said that "nuclear" refers to atomic nuclei, which all atoms have, and not to "radioactivity". People simply would not believe that radiation from overhead power lines could not cause damage to their bodies, even though physicists told them that each photon from those power lines carries 100 BILLION times less energy that the water molecules that are bouncing around in their bodies or the air molecules bouncing off their bodies all the time. We had years of epidemiological studies, etc., wasting huge amounts of experts' time that could better have been spent elsewhere (similarly with cellphone radiation, though there the difference is "only" 10,000 times). Homeopathy gets more popular even though for most of the "remedies", the odds of there being a single molecule of active agent in the pills is less than 1 over the number of atoms in the universe. The homeopaths say "the water molecules remember the imprint of the cure", and people don't believe the physicists who tell them that water molecules don't have memory. Those are only a few examples of things that don't conflict with people's religious views. Peoples' acceptance of the results of physical science when they conflict with Revealed Truth is even more rare.
Robin Hanson picks one example that no one cares about (because string theory has no application to the material world yet), and unjustifiably extends it to all of the physical sciences.
PrestoPundit
· 3 years ago
The problem starts with a profession in denial -- economists can't explain to you how or why economics is a "science". In fact, they can't even give you a coherent account of how economics explains things or produced knowledge. "Macroeconomics" is the biggest mess of all -- there's no concensus and no compatibility with what economists believe when they are teaching "micro". Economists also notoriously simply ignore all of the conceptual and explanatory problems build into their "models". Consider capital theory with only one good. The examples are endless.
When economists get their own house in order perhaps they will earn more respect from those within the scientific community.
All Comments
Physicists don't get much respect either. On topics so esoteric that nobody outside the field understands or cares, there's no reason to dispute an expert, but that lack of dispute doesn't indicate agreement, just indifference.
On topics that have some bearing on popular topics (say, age and origin of the universe, where it contradicts religious writings), I think you'll find that there's a lot of second-guessing by "the masses".
Good gracious - talk about arrogance! Aren't you SO glad, Don, that you're one of those "fortunate highbrows", instead of someone who actually (GASP) ---works--- for a living. Thank God you don't have to sully your hands with real labor.
Good thing I didn't try to claim my observation was original; in this as in so many cases, I find myself in ritual rediscovery of ancient truths. :)
Dear Don,
Excuse me, but which economic experts am I supposed to listen to when a professor from George Mason asserts the value of a free market and a professor from Harvard asserts the superiority of socialism over the market place? One reason that social scientists have a problem is that all kinds of views seem to hold sway and no objective means seems to have arisen which adjudicates right from wrong. When there is objective evidence that can universally be shown to support one view and disprove another, then the situation will change.
I think that the great difference between social sciences and the other fields of investigation is that nobody cares if you reject or not theories about Chemistry or Astronomy.
The expansion of democracy makes the opinion of each individual about certain things important. But it is irrational: why I should know more about economics or political philosophy than the reproduction of birds?
The voter cares more about the result than pratical questions about how to attain certain goals. Maybe it's more important to convince the intelectual elite than the average joe. Consider the approach of Hayek when he founded the Mont Pelerin society.
Yeah, the problem with economics is that people confuse it for finance, and ... well, everybody can sum up their restaurant bill, right?
Also, economics is newer (e.g. Coasian analysis of the firm, and he's still alive) and is still actively being revised. Unfortunately, some people with PhDs in economics are not actively revising their grad-school conclusions.
Sorry, but I don't see it. The name Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was changed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging because people simply wouldn't believe physicists when they said that "nuclear" refers to atomic nuclei, which all atoms have, and not to "radioactivity". People simply would not believe that radiation from overhead power lines could not cause damage to their bodies, even though physicists told them that each photon from those power lines carries 100 BILLION times less energy that the water molecules that are bouncing around in their bodies or the air molecules bouncing off their bodies all the time. We had years of epidemiological studies, etc., wasting huge amounts of experts' time that could better have been spent elsewhere (similarly with cellphone radiation, though there the difference is "only" 10,000 times). Homeopathy gets more popular even though for most of the "remedies", the odds of there being a single molecule of active agent in the pills is less than 1 over the number of atoms in the universe. The homeopaths say "the water molecules remember the imprint of the cure", and people don't believe the physicists who tell them that water molecules don't have memory. Those are only a few examples of things that don't conflict with people's religious views. Peoples' acceptance of the results of physical science when they conflict with Revealed Truth is even more rare.
Robin Hanson picks one example that no one cares about (because string theory has no application to the material world yet), and unjustifiably extends it to all of the physical sciences.
The problem starts with a profession in denial -- economists can't explain to you how or why economics is a "science". In fact, they can't even give you a coherent account of how economics explains things or produced knowledge. "Macroeconomics" is the biggest mess of all -- there's no concensus and no compatibility with what economists believe when they are teaching "micro". Economists also notoriously simply ignore all of the conceptual and explanatory problems build into their "models". Consider capital theory with only one good. The examples are endless.
When economists get their own house in order perhaps they will earn more respect from those within the scientific community.