Timeline for The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics in Economics
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2022 at 18:46 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @EricDuminil for example Ness et al 2022 recently designed model that can predict thermal history in additive manufacturing with 95% accuracy and they mention older models that have lower accuracy than that. That is close to 90% accuracy in crime estimation | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 18:27 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | @1muflon1: Your wild claim isn't just about economics, but about economics vs physics. It's basically like a child claiming that they totally could swim as fast as Michael Phelps. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 18:05 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @EricDuminil that’s an absurd request, a paper that describes accuracy of economic papers will by definition be part of economics corpus, that’s like saying give me paper on astronomy but not about astronomy. Also there is wide consensus in epistemology economics is a science. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 18:01 | comment | added | Eric Duminil | "While economics or other social sciences are not yet as precise as some areas of physics they are not far behind." Really? Please find a reliable source outside of your echo chamber. | |
| Jul 10, 2022 at 9:20 | comment | added | Richard Hardy | I would distinguish success in causal explanation vs. prediction. As far as I know, the credibility revolution did not bring (much) predictive success. | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 19:17 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @user253751 MONIAC according to wikipedia was used till late 60s/early 70s, first digital computer was created in 1945 which predates even the first MONIAC | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:22 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @James thanks for the paper I added it to my answer | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:22 | history | edited | 1muflon1♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 85 characters in body
|
| Jul 8, 2022 at 14:06 | comment | added | James | Might be better to change the reference from ScienceDaily to the original paper published in Nature or directly from the University | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 8:12 | comment | added | Giskard | I like Angrist and Pischke as a source, but both of your success stories are non-scientific papers - Forbes for the pregnancy one and Sciencedaily (!) for the crime prediction one. IMO comparing this latter result about statistics to "precogs" overhypes the latter a way that is unfortunately not unusual in econ. | |
| Jul 7, 2022 at 22:33 | history | answered | 1muflon1♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |