First, if the models are wrong, why teach them? Second, because they're not practitioners, they cannot tell you if the models are right or wrong. Biology is (mostly) different, because it can be measured, tested, and, if wrong, falsified. I'm attacking the merits of the field.
-
You'd have to show me more than anecdotal evidence that the majority of peer reviewed economic studies are false. I'm sorry your economics major left you so disillusioned in the field. Maybe you chose the wrong tracks. I chose developmental and public.
A single anecdote can falsify an entire paper. Asking me to cite an empirical study to prove my point that empirical studies of economics seems a bit circular no? When I took economics, I felt it was easier than math and it seemed a bit naive or unrealistic, especially macro.
-
-
It's not until you venture out in the real world that you realize that it's mostly a big waste of time. When it's right, it's grossly inefficient.
-
For whatever it's worth, there is a replication crisis in the field of economics - it's not just psych and medical afflicted by this.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.