this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
932 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

10177 readers
2617 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anarchist@lemmy.ml 75 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

See, replication isn't a problem if your entire field is vibes-based. A lot of economics papers I come across are like that (so much so that I am close to writing off the entire decipline as unscientific). The diff in the level of rigour you would see in e.g. particle physics versus in economics is baffling.

It used to be psychology as well but I am noticing they are more than aware of their replication crisis lately. Whereas economics feels pseudoscience with a maths clothing.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The problem is that a lot out economics relies on "models" that estimate the price of milk by assuming a frictionless cow on an infinite plane. There's a distinct lack of attempts to actually test the models against reality, or simply study reality itself (the reason likely being that when people do study reality instead of models, the progressive economists most often turn out to be right)

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Economics is tarot card reading for right wing pseudointellectuals, just like The Stock Market being the same as astrological horoscopes for the same crowd

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Not all of it. But that's what a lot of the mainstream has become.

For a better analysis than I can give, check out Unlearning Economics on YouTube. He's an econ PhD doing a lot of excellent work dissecting the problems with the field as a whole.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

where's that SMBC comic that says economic models suck so bad because they're created by the sort of person who gets a business degree

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 month ago

That's pretty much all of them

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago

The real issue is that anyone can come up with an economic model, but politicians and public figures get to pick and choose the one that fits their beliefs most closely. The model can be crap and barely hold up beyond an ELIF narrative about why it's true, and people will base their careers around believing it

I think there are good economic models out there, it's just the convenient ones that are spread... Ones that don't generally hold up against actual observation

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

The problem is that a lot out economics relies on "models" that estimate the price of milk by assuming a frictionless cow on an infinite plane

Reminds me of a great sarcastic comment I heard in a "Well, there's your problem" podcast. It was along the lines of "Turns out that, if gas was free, contrary to what economists would have you believe, people wouldn't be consuming infinite amounts of it"

[–] Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Also the fact that the economy is managed can mean things aren't always testable. If you think there's going to be a recession based on models and you prevent that by using policy, did you really prevent the recession or was it never going to happen?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 19 points 1 month ago

Economists are just maths/stats nerds that like gambling, don't bother to cmv.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.de 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see the same issues also in computer science especially when looking into recent trends such as AI or blockchain/NFTs before that. There are definitely areas that are more rigorous than others but the replication crisis is a problem in many many scientific fields. If your results are not completely outlandish and don't go against the vibe, no one will ever bother to check your results.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There are so many different areas of computer science though... Everything from pure mathematics (e.g 'we found a new algorithm that does X in O(logx)') to the absurdly specific ('when I run the load tests with this configuration it's faster'). The former would get published. The latter wouldn't. And the stuff in the middle ranges the gamut from 'here's my new GC algorithm that performs better in benchmarks on these sample sets' to 'looks like programmers have fewer bugs when you constrain them with these invariants'. All the way over on the other side, NFT/Blockchain/AI announcement crap usually doesn't even have a scientific statement to be expressed, so there's nothing to confirm or deny. There are issues with some areas, but I'm not sure that replication is really the big one for most of these. Only one it commonly applies to IMO are productivity or bug-frequency claims which are generally hella suss

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.de 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A field that definitely has a problem with replication is Computer Human Interaction. There are a lot of user studies in that field and you basically never see a study done twice. The setup of the studies usually doesn't even allow it to be repeated as it hinges on some proprietary software written for that very study that is not released to the public.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah that's a very good point. I was kinda thinking of HCI at the end there but I'm a software engineer so I was only talking about dev experience 😅. Definitely the same ballpark though and 100% agree with you

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The level of rigour you would see in e.g. particle physics versus in economics is baffling.

There's no economic equivalent of a LHC, though. For a while, the high end physics really was confined to a blackboard and predicated on people's faith in mathematics. And you can build convincing economic models rooted in a reliable mathematical formula. You can even back your way into a convincing mathematical model by compiling economic data and building a model around that.

Whereas economics feels pseudoscience with a maths clothing.

The economist Richard Wolff often comments on the curious distinction between Economics and Business as fields of study.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Na mate, you can't replicate a single study. There's never a chance to control all your environment and redo everything exactly the same. Even if you did, people get older and arguably wiser so they behave difference under the same situation.

In the mean time, all electrons are interchangeable and you can pick as many as you want and put in the condition that you want.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah no economics is absolutely a fake science

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I read about the Stanford prison experiments being widely cited, and it likely has influenced our culture in some way.