But nothing in economics (other than Becker's work which has had no impact on how economics is taught) treats human beings as social beings. We are not just individuals in the models. We're alone, buying goods, and generating "utility." Bizarre vision of what creates well-being. https://twitter.com/veryrichard/status/1098700277669154817 …
-
-
I’d say it depends on whether it’s interpretivist or positivist social scientists. The latter is using the same methology as natural scientists. The former is a tougher cookie to swallow in a scientifical sense, since they operate without traditionally scientifical methods.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hayek showed that you can have a social science — and he also showed that the received picture of “science” was junk. These projects were intimately related. More people should be aware of them and understand them.
-
Science starts with an empirical problem and science provides us with solutions to those problems which unify the phenomena and answer our “why” questions. Hayek and Adam Smith showed us that economics does this. The problem is professors that don’t get it & do the science wrong.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not true at all. If you use science to at society, that's social science. And it's very much possible.
-
Yeah, and it's not science. It's just called science. Shouldn't confuse faux science with the real thing but we do it all the time.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
10 points for doing a Stephen J. Gould impression
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.