• ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Later that evening at the local tavern.

    “So then when it fails for the third time, he drinks a cup of acid, tips his hat to the crowd, and then collapses.”

    “Haha! That’s gold!”

    The tavern falls silent.

  • anar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months 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. 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months 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.

      • Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months 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?

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months 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”

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months 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.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    5 months ago

    isn’t there a problem with lack of replication in the scientific world though? i feel like replication experiments don’t get grants easily so people are more likely to pursue one time experiments.

    • BenPranklin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yeah and if it were some mundane claim it would probably get away with it. But its always something outlandish like say being able to perform fully automated blood tests with a single drop of blood.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        For a hot minute, Elizabeth Holmes had a company with a multi-billion dollar valuation based on her specious claims. It doesn’t seem like the risk of getting caught deterred her from committing a phenomenal fraud, or rendering false results to thousands of patients who relied on it during her initial testing. The enormous immediate profit and prestige drowned out the nagging fear of getting caught.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Also, the people investing in her company really should have done more independent research than they did.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        pretty much what i thought, but reading through the link Drewelite provided, there are numerous other problems as well.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 months ago

    If you want to see a good example of scientific fraud, read about the scientists and doctors who helped the tobacco lobby lie to the public for decades.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    My daughter has just written her bachelor thesis. For that, she had to compare a bunch of papers and studies about a number of sub-topics related to her thesis topic. For one such point, there were only two studies to be found in the world. Both from renowned scientists and universities, both looking sound regarding their methods, both having comparably large data sets, and they both came to completely opposite conclusions. After a talk with her thesis advisor, she dropped this sub-topic and the studies from her thesis.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    Patenting my formula for turning mercury into gold, registering it with the state, and filing a series of vexatious lawsuits claiming anyone doing gold plating is actually using my technique.

  • linuxgator@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    He was probably suffering from mercury poisoning anyway which made him think he could get away with what he was doing.

  • reattach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    In January 1783, Price returned to his laboratory in Guildford, ostensibly to start production of the miraculous powders. In fact, he set about the distillation of laurel water (which contained hydrogen cyanide, commonly known as prussic acid). He wrote his will at the same time, but it was another six months before he returned to London to invite members of the Royal Society to witness the experiment on 3 August in his laboratory in Guildford.

    Despite the claimed successes of his initial demonstrations and the furor they had caused, only three members turned up in Guildford on the appointed day. Although clearly disappointed by the poor turnout, Price welcomed the three men and then, stepping to one side, ended his life by drinking the flask of laurel water he had prepared. The three men immediately noticed a change in his appearance, but before they could do anything, Price had died of cyanide poisoning.