• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      And even psychology is extremely dubious. Just look at the recent Stanford scandal, and the replication crisis a few year ago…

      Unfortunately, publication pressure turned psychology into total junk. You can’t really believe anything unless several other institutions replicated the experiments (and good luck getting funding for that).

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t really believe anything unless several other institutions replicated the experiments (and good luck getting funding for that.)

        Shouldn’t that be the case with every scientific discipline?

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree.

      Economics, sociology and political science are the trifecta of sciences that cover human societies, rather than human individuals.

      Psychology is closer to medicine. It is complex and unpredictable, because humans are complex and unpredictable, but they approach the subject empirically and can actually achieve consistentcy. For example, we are getting really good at helping people with PTSS, ADHD, Autism, learning difficulties, etc.

      I would say economics, sociology and political science are at the lowest rung on the “certainty” totempole. These sciences are forever stuck in the “we don’t know what we don’t know, so we are driving blind” mode of operation. They only succeed in analysing and narrating what happened after the fact. At best, they prevent us from repeating some mistakes in the most obvious ways. But they also enable us to repeat old mistakes in novel ways.

      The only reason people confuse economics with the hard sciences, is because it has a Nobel prize.

      But it really should be seen as an equivalent to the Nobel peace and literature prizes, in a separate league of the physics, medicine and chemistry ones.

      Even economists themselves call their science the dismal science.

      All this said, Economists are true and capable scientists (well, some are corrupt and biased, but some doctors are, too. That’s not an indictment of the whole field).

      Their subject is just difficult to analyze.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, define experimental?

      Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his research on the psychology of judgement and decision making, which drives our economic models. He’s a psychologist.

      Any definition of experimental that fits psychology will fit economics.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sociology is an actual science with a methodology and it tries to learn from other sciences.

      Economy considers it pure like maths despite the evidences it is not the case.

      Economy is pseudo-science at its best.

      • Teppic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Economy` is pseudo-science at its best.

        This sentence doesn’t even make sense.
        Econometrics is highly research driven and evidence based. In it’s simplest form econometrics says if you put prices down you will (usually) sell more of your product. You’d dismiss this observation as pseudo-science?