Yes, it’s very disingenuous to take the quote the abstract concludes on which plainly supports the social sciences as true scientific fields, contrary to what the OP implies through scare quotes.
By the way, here’s the full chart since you’re so worried about taking things “out of context”:
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means. I am very smart™.
You’re bring a lot of energy that suggest to me this is a particular bone you have to pick. I agree econ can be a science. Sadly this meme doesn’t dive into the sociological foundations that validate the possibility of a hypothetical world where econ is done properly and can become a science along side other social sciences; choosing instead to just critique the absurdity of economics as it is currently exists.
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means.
I think there are other issues with the paper that make me hesitant to take it’s conclusions at face value.
Yes, it’s very disingenuous to take the quote the abstract concludes on which plainly supports the social sciences as true scientific fields, contrary to what the OP implies through scare quotes.
By the way, here’s the full chart since you’re so worried about taking things “out of context”:
I guess economics is just a more robust field of science than biochem, pharmacology, clinical medicine, materials science, and psych, because that’s totally what the data means. I am very smart™.
You’re bring a lot of energy that suggest to me this is a particular bone you have to pick. I agree econ can be a science. Sadly this meme doesn’t dive into the sociological foundations that validate the possibility of a hypothetical world where econ is done properly and can become a science along side other social sciences; choosing instead to just critique the absurdity of economics as it is currently exists.
I think there are other issues with the paper that make me hesitant to take it’s conclusions at face value.