Comments on: Nancy in the Nation… and a Nobel pet peeve https://fguide.org/?p=109 News, outrage, euphoria, etc from the Center for Popular Economics Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:42:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Eric Nilsson https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5100 Eric Nilsson Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:21:08 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5100 Those behind the prize given to economists were clearly linking their prize to the "real science" Nobel prizes such as Chemistry and Physics. They simply wanted to get more PR for the economics prize and, along the way, cement in the public’s mind the claim that orthodox economics was “Science.”(That is, as opposed to sociology or heterodox economics.) It is no different than one manufacturer mimicking the packaging of a well-known & desirous product in order to fool the public. The product might be legit as anything else, but the marketing is clearly intended to fool people…which makes you wonder about those behind the marketing. They could have named it something else like the "Smith Medal" to parallel the Fields Medal given to Mathematicians (which likely confers more prestige than a simple Nobel Prize). Those behind the prize given to economists were clearly linking their prize to the “real science” Nobel prizes such as Chemistry and Physics. They simply wanted to get more PR for the economics prize and, along the way, cement in the public’s mind the claim that orthodox economics was “Science.”(That is, as opposed to sociology or heterodox economics.)

It is no different than one manufacturer mimicking the packaging of a well-known & desirous product in order to fool the public. The product might be legit as anything else, but the marketing is clearly intended to fool people…which makes you wonder about those behind the marketing.

They could have named it something else like the “Smith Medal” to parallel the Fields Medal given to Mathematicians (which likely confers more prestige than a simple Nobel Prize).

]]> By: Jonathan Teller-Elsberg https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5405 Jonathan Teller-Elsberg Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:38:56 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5405 True, to an extent--the folks at the Swedish central bank who wanted to institute the economics prize were clearly trying to catch a ride on the coat tails of the established reputation of the Nobel prizes. However, the Nobel Prize organization was a willing participant and aside from the money (which comes from the bank) treats economics winners exactly as it treats others (so, for example, economics prize winners are listed on nobel.org in the same way as the physics, literature, peace, and other prize winners). And please note: the Nobel prize in literature does not fool anyone into thinking that poetry or fiction are sciences, nor does the peace prize make anyone think that there is a science to peace. If someone wants to think of economics as a science in the same way they think of physics as a science, they are welcome to do so. They'd be foolish to do so, of course, since economics is a social science and, though many practitioners borrow techniques from the natural sciences, I don't think that any half-knowledgeable person actually argues otherwise. Anyhow, even assuming there is some sleight-of-hand going on here, what bugs me is those critics of the Nobel economics prize who seem to think that this actually amounts to something meaningful. Again, my assertion: the Nobel prize in economics does not actually affect anything important in the grand scheme of things and eliminating it would not improve anyone's life one whit. If we must fight battles, lets choose wisely. (Said the pot!) True, to an extent–the folks at the Swedish central bank who wanted to institute the economics prize were clearly trying to catch a ride on the coat tails of the established reputation of the Nobel prizes. However, the Nobel Prize organization was a willing participant and aside from the money (which comes from the bank) treats economics winners exactly as it treats others (so, for example, economics prize winners are listed on nobel.org in the same way as the physics, literature, peace, and other prize winners). And please note: the Nobel prize in literature does not fool anyone into thinking that poetry or fiction are sciences, nor does the peace prize make anyone think that there is a science to peace. If someone wants to think of economics as a science in the same way they think of physics as a science, they are welcome to do so. They’d be foolish to do so, of course, since economics is a social science and, though many practitioners borrow techniques from the natural sciences, I don’t think that any half-knowledgeable person actually argues otherwise.

Anyhow, even assuming there is some sleight-of-hand going on here, what bugs me is those critics of the Nobel economics prize who seem to think that this actually amounts to something meaningful. Again, my assertion: the Nobel prize in economics does not actually affect anything important in the grand scheme of things and eliminating it would not improve anyone’s life one whit. If we must fight battles, lets choose wisely. (Said the pot!)

]]> By: David Mackey https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5749 David Mackey Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:38:15 +0000 https://fguide.org/?p=109#comment-5749 I have to disagree about your statement that knowledge does not greatly affect mankind. For example, while the knowledge of 2006's discoveries may not significantly affect life now it may be the genesis for significant additional discoveries or inventions. I have to disagree about your statement that knowledge does not greatly affect mankind. For example, while the knowledge of 2006’s discoveries may not significantly affect life now it may be the genesis for significant additional discoveries or inventions.

]]>