Why doesn't econ get the same level of respect as sciences?

The empirical parts of economics are too inaccurate to be of practical use, and the theoretical parts of economics are too trivial to be of mathematical interest.

t. economist

>>8830568
it's more corrupted by ideology

>>8830568
It depends too much on human psychology, which isn't science.

>>8830568
Econ is the most respected "humanities" though.

But hey, at least you aren't a NEET women's studies major that is leeching on welfare and beta orbiters.

morons hate what they don't understand

or even worse - they sublime something they think they understand
econ and psychology are the actual hardest sciences. there are almost an endless amount of variables that have to be taken into consideration to understand it 100%

>>8830568
They make wrong predictions all the time and they don't agree on anything. Also, how the fuck do you conduct a real macroeconomic experiment? You can't, so macroeconomics is not science. It's Epimethius + politics.

it, like all of science, can only give odds of an action occuring, after another action. no science has 100% proof of causality

>>8830635
this
all these people talking shit about psychology are wrong

>>8830568
Macro is not experimentally verifiable. Since we can't create vacuum economies the only way to test a theory and get universally applicable results would be to change the entire world's economy. Changing just one country won't give reliable information since other countries aren't fixed in time, so in the future we could get completely different results. Even then, completely controlling all the variables within a single country is extremely difficult if not impossible.

Micro is actually mostly agreed upon. Especially within capitalistic systems which are the major economies. Unfortunately, economists are often bought out or affected by political ideology. Take a look at Krugman's old textbooks and look at what he "believes" now if you want a laugh.

Psychology has similar problems as well. Stuff like the Stanford prison experiment are illegal to perform and political ideology prevents many things from being done seriously. Things involving income, race, and gender cannot have certain conclusions due to political bias, especially political bias in academia where the research is performed.

Unrelated question. I've heard that good economics schools have some serious math requirements like real analysis. Does anyone know if economists actually use this or is it just a way to filter out the worst from applications? If so, could you link it?

File: 41jCHBWQ0GL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (26KB, 328x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 328x499px

>>8830722
>Micro is actually mostly agreed upon.
Eh, it depends on what you count as micro. The assumptions of game theory are too unrealistic to apply to individuals, but domain-specific applications within controlled environments can be held to the standard of experimental verification.

>I've heard that good economics schools have some serious math requirements like real analysis. Does anyone know if economists actually use this or is it just a way to filter out the worst from applications?
It's useful insofar as real analysis is the foundation for probability and hence for all nondeterministic models. I personally use it, but the job scope of economists is so broad that I wouldn't dare to extrapolate to make claims on behalf of all of us.

>>8830568
Because bourgeois economics are cyclically falsified every ten or so years when the next crisis occurs.
It's just a string of ad hoc justifications for bourgeois rule and little else.

at least you'd still be employable doing a degree in econ

i'm doing psychology and i'm still trying to justify it

>>8830597
>thinks econ is respected amoung humanities
>thinks NEETs go to college
>thinks NEET is intrested in women's studies
>left over gamergate memes
Go back to /b/ you autistic swine

>>8830568
Because it isn't fucking imporant or based on reality and has become a platform for corporate think tanks and front groups.

>>8831097
>economics isn't important


hooooooooly fuuuuuuuuck

>>8830568
> Why doesn't econ get the same level of respect as sciences?

Economists get respect in the form of dollar bills. What, did you want praise on top of that?

File: 1444968516051.png (1MB, 826x738px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 826x738px

>>8830568
Science is the ability to obtain knowledge through empirical means of certainties and impossibilities. Economics is a science in that regard because it is built upon previous premises that have been agreed upon to be testable and observable. Also, without trusting economics as a science, the world would be a terrible place.

>>8830635
That's why economi doesnt get respect. There's an endless amount of variables, so economists just choose to ignore them, leading to inaccurate models and "laws"

>>8831684
what do they choose to ignore? that doesn't make economics a non-science, it makes those who ignore non-economists

>>8831725
Do you have knowledge about economics? Im asking just to know how long my answer should be.

>>8832036
minor in it

>>8831725
>that doesn't make economics a non-science
No, but the fact that it's at best unfalsifiable and at worst empirically falsified at every turn does.