Meme subjects

>economics

Hate math because you're bad at it, or just never taken more than one economics course?

>Hate math because you're bad at it
I don't see the relevance.

Sociology

>Sociology
not STEM

Economics isn't a hard science or everyone would get rich in the stock market. It doesn't follow the scienftic method.

He didn't even read the OP he just wanted someone to here his opinion.

Practical economics is just applied mathematics for constrained optimization. There's no 'science'/observation to it, it's the study of maximizing or minimizing target variables given limitations in other factors. Calling it "fraudulent" means you either irrationally hate the idea of math being useful in some situation or just have a very serious misunderstanding of what economics actually is

You didn't think economics grads get paid to have opinions about public policy or the macroeconomy, did you?

there is more math in cancer research than you think

all of gene of interest delivery methods (there are kinda many) are chaos theory subjects

>economics is the study of the stock market
>economics is the study of the economy

Can you believe it's 2018 and people like this are still out there

>There's only one type of economic study
>Macroeconomics don't exist
>Behavioral economics don't exist
That doesn't change the fact that no form of economics follow the scientific method, so therefor it is a soft science. This really isn't hard to understand. Here, you seem to be on the slower side of the spectrum so I'll make a flow chart for you.

>does it follow the scienftic method?
>yes
>then it is a hard science
>does it follow the scienftic method?
>no
>then it is not a hard science.
Let's apply our new toy shall we?
>does economics follow the scientific method?
>no
>then Itnos not a hard science
See how fun the scientific method can be?

Economics doesn't try to be hard science, I don't know why you insist not being a science is somehow a point against it. Science is a scam, it's unreliable. Math and economics don't need experiments and guesswork like science does. It's about the manipulation of numbers to arrive at a conclusion about what is, rather than examining data to make inferences about what probably is. In this way, it is math, not science

In any practical sense outside of being interesting popecon for highschoolers, no, macro and behavioral economics do not exist. Not the same field at all. You're referring to the field of "greater psychology"

brainlet detected

>Economics doesn't try to be a hard science
Good because it's not.
>Science is a scam
Not if it follow the scientific method. That's the point of the scientific method.
>Math and economics don't need guess work
That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
>Still denying other types of economics don't exist because you don't like them
That's the same shit you were claiming up here Stop being dense stupid. These aren't arbitrary definitions that I made up on the spot for this thread. There's actual reasoning behind economics not being a science any more than psychology, criminal justice or any other science effected by social factors. It cannot be a science if it is effected by social factors, because social factors aren't something that can be measured to have empirical evidence as social factors are changing all the time. Again, this isn't hard. This isn't something I made up to argue with you, these are definitions going back to the 16th century. Smarter people than you have tried to debate this, and smarter people than you have been wrong. C'est la vie.

>the scienftic method
No such thing.

Cancer research for sure. The best possible treatment is worse than the disease itself. Also, any bill proposing reduced funding for cancer research will instantly ruin a politician's career.

>because I said so
K.

>>because I said so
Who are you quoting?

define "the scientific method"

>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method

You're so fucking dumb dude. Holy shit. Do you have no clue what math is or how it's done? You think it's a science? You think mathematicians follow the scientific method?

How the fuck is math "science" and applied math magically not "science? Give too much real-world functionality or context to math concepts and it suddenly has to be proven by experiment and not math? Do you have any idea what you're saying here or are you just throwing out any response to act like you didn't just fundamentally misunderstand the purpose behind the field of economics?

Some guy that posted some stupid shit and then nothing to back up his opinion. I assumed if he wasn't an idiot and had some actual evidence he would have posted it instead of dragging out 2 or 3 more posts for no reason.

>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.

This is called a model, you dense fuck. Every branch of science has them, but you need to actually be able to perform experiments to validate the model you're proposing. Economics is more like philosophy where you just stick with your worldview no matter how retarded it is.

"The scienftic method is a body of techniques for investigating, acquiring new knowledge...." Copy and paste that into google. I really don't want to type out the entire definition. But the fact remains that it is clearly defined and has been for hundreds of years. Why are you asking me?

>Why are you asking me?
Because you keep posting under the assumption that "the scientific method" is well-defined.

Well that's because it has. Since like the 16th century. I could have Googled that in 2005 and received the same definition. I could have looked it up in a chemistry book from 1950 and it would still have the same definition.

>Well that's because it has. Since like the 16th century. I could have Googled that in 2005 and received the same definition. I could have looked it up in a chemistry book from 1950 and it would still have the same definition.
You're welcome to post it, I don't know why you think I would be interested in all these falsehoods when all I've asked for is a definition.

I don't get how one person can be so dense. He's asking what the magic procedure that makes this, apparently very specific (it's not) method so concretely powerful (which it isn't). The goal of the "scientific method" has remained the same, but the actual method behind it has always been both inconsistent and changing. It's not some sort of one solid "truth filter", it's a bunch of different ways people, at one point or another, thought maybe gave validity to their guesses

And you're welcome to google it. I don't know why you think I would be interested in copy pasting a definition when all I've asked for is for you to read the definition.
The magic procedure is the scientific method. It's not a truth filter, but anything outside of it can't be taken as truth.

>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
My nomination for most unintelligent and uninformed post of Veeky Forums history

terrible bait

>I don't know why you think I would be interested in copy pasting a definition when all I've asked for is for you to read the definition.
What "definition"?

Psychology is
Ok, haters be btfo
Physics is why
if not phd
Just why
Math is calm cool etcollected...
Just don't forget where you're coming from
Biology is why, just why

Look up Renaissance Technologies lad
You can get rich by only useing hard sciences

Are there any people here who are not just trolls?

??? So we should stop researching so that people can continue dying of cancer and so that treatments stop improving.

someone make this a banner image, the innocence is breathtaking

You're gonna need a bigger bait

Yes? We obviously won't find a cure for all cancers or even one honetsly. Just let people die and we can focus on other things that are more important... If people's lives were this important we wouldn't be having paid college educations, shit-tier internet that's years behind rest of the world or for-profit prisons. Cancer research is nothing but an expensive "cover-up" to give people hope, just like politicians mention "god" and other brainlet voodoo shit that's not just to get popular.

Economics is not a hard science.
Economics is not even a soft science.
Economics is not science.
Economics is pure liberal arts.

Definitions are hard for this one.

>All models are wrong. The models are useless.
>Expects a model to perfectly replicate reality
>Doesn't even know what a model is

Pure mathematics, baby. Straight from the 'The Book' itself. Take it or leave it.

brainlet alert

if economics is not a science, how come countries with good monetary policies have high wages and countries with poor monetary policies have low wages and debt
south america is a great example, they used to be rich (argentina and venezuela are good examples), but because of terrible fiscal policies they are at the bottom of the barrel now
meanwhile, countries with strong economists at the helm (usa, japan, germany, the uk, france) thrive and prosper even in times of worldwide crisis

All three of these comments are irrelevant.

Definitions are hard for some people...

fairobserver.com/economics/economics-is-an-art-not-a-science-30124/

University's give out Bachelor of Arts degrees in economics.

The fact we're even having this conversation only proves how utterly and irredeemably retarded some people are.

>Mathematicians: "10 + 15 = 35"
Laymen: "Yeah yeah for sure I follow"
>Economists: "$10 + $15 = $35"
Laymen: [sucks air in through teeth] "I don't know... What's the methodology behind this?" [shifts uncomfortably in seat] "is this peer-reviewed? Is there hard science behind this or is this just blind ideology? You can never tell with this economics thing. Just look at the 2008 crash. That was economics, right? I think it was, anyway, right? Because that was fucked up lol. If economics is so sound why does stuff like that happen. Idiot."

I have my B.Sc. Economics, so whatever you're trying to say by pointing out that it's a B.A. program is pointless. Things vary from university to university, you know

10+15 is 25 though

I guess you learned how to be so smart with your BSc in economics.

I made a typo. Just crucify me I guess

You're a dumbass... But I'm glad you've come up with a good way to rationalize it all in your puny little brain and be a happy, "productive", member of society.

>I made a typo.

I don't believe you. I think you're retarded.

>Just crucify me I guess

Yes. This is the internet.

farts, not the act but the theory that we can as a species generate enough horse power of flatulence to economically and geometrically power an entire ass load of a city. You hear me? I'm talking saving million- no, ZILLIONS of kaching. *(Oh right and energy, that is the number one priority here.) Flatulence energy son. Remember, if you rip one, they will come. Give these people AIR! (from an asshole of super soldiers)

>10+15 = 35
holy fucking shit we found the stupidest brainlet on the board, cant even do basic math.

>You didn't think economics grads get paid to have opinions about public policy or the macroeconomy, did you?
Not him, but I unironically thought this.

Stock market is finance not economics, ya fuckin idiot. And yes, people do use finance or math to get rich off the stock market ALL THE TIME. The "95% of people lose" is a meme. All of those people are brainlets. If you have 125+ IQ and less than 1 million dollars, it's very easy to double your money every year.

>10+15=35
LMFAO
WATCH HIM BACKPEDAL AND SAY HE DID THIS ON PURPOSE TO "SHOW MATHS CAN BE WRONG TOO"

>is finance not economics

finance is a hard science.

quantum mechanics
>inb4 muh pilot waves

I have met many economics graduate students who do exactly that. The vast majority do not know more than basic linear models, which are clearly vast oversimplifications, possibly misguided entirely.

>What are some research subjects
(1) why shilltards are obsessed with the word "meme"
(2) why shilltards don't know the meaning of "meme"
(3) why shilltards never Lrn2meme fgt pls

>10 + 15 = 35
youtube.com/watch?v=E6lGzEidRj4

>What are some research subjects in STEM that you consider are a fraud?
artificial intelligence

pure frequentist inference

"""mindfulness"""
pure math without even geometric motivation

So what's your preferred theory?

also

>SETI
>human space exploration
>computer """engineering"""

I don't even understand how money works so economics is hard for me.

"molecular" biology
evolutionary biology

>cancer research is fraud

Is this a thread for brainlets and/or highschoolers?

hes underage, probably thinks hes smart because hes in "ap" physics

>hes underage
I'm not a "he".

everything else was true tho nrite

general and special relativity

>That's because the math has already been through the process of the scientific method. Hence why we have axioms and formulas. They work that way EVERY time. That's why they pass the scientific method.
Holeeey shiiiieeet. That's some dank stemlet material right there. LMFAO

psychology studies are rarely replicated and honestly should just be ignored

>Cancer research for sure. The best possible treatment is worse than the disease itself.
>t. I don't know anything about cancer treatment

>social psychology papers
There, that's better.

aerospace engineering

Theoretical Computer "Science"

Most autistic post I've read today. Fresh off the boat from reddit, buddy?

Quantum by far

The Theory of Relativity. It makes for great science fiction and is a beautiful theory in the same way a great work of art is beautiful or a painting or some such. And in a similar way Relativity is only to be appreciated qualitatively rather than quantitatively. There are no relevant quantities in relativity theory or practical applications to the theory. Same with String Theory, but it is even more beautiful.

What's your opinion of Turing's work?

Why is this?

No practical application? How about the GPS navigation system?