By Robert J. Shiller (
Shanghai Daily) 10:16, December 17, 2013
Email|
Print|
Comments twitter facebook Sina Microblog reddit I am one of the winners of this year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, whichmakes me acutely aware of criticism of the prize by those who claim that economics —unlike chemistry, physics, or medicine, for which Nobel Prizes are also awarded — is not ascience. Are they right?
One problem with economics is that it is necessarily focused on policy, rather thandiscovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as aguide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us asthe internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organellesof a living cell.
We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more likeengineering than physics, more practical than spiritual.
There is no Nobel Prize for engineering, though there should be. True, the chemistry prizethis year looks a bit like an engineering prize, because it was given to three researchers“for the development of multiscale models of complex chemical systems” that underlie thecomputer programs that make nuclear magnetic resonance hardware work. But the NobelFoundation is forced to look at much more such practical, applied material when itconsiders the economics prize.
The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes intoplay. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by publicattention. The Nobel Prize is designed to reward those who do not play tricks for attention,and who, in their sincere pursuit of the truth, might otherwise be slighted.
Why is it called a prize in “economic sciences,” rather than just “economics.” The otherprizes are not awarded in the “chemical sciences” or the “physical sciences.” Fields ofendeavor that use “science” in their titles tend to be those that get masses of peopleemotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on publicopinion. These fields have “science” in their names to distinguish them from theirdisreputable cousins.
The term political science first became popular in the late 18th century to distinguish itfrom all the partisan tracts whose purpose was to gain votes and influence rather thanpursue the truth. Astronomical science was a common term in the late 19thcentury, todistinguish it from astrology and the study of ancient myths about the constellations.Hypnotic science was also used in the 19th century to distinguish the scientific study ofhypnotism from witchcraft or religious transcendentalism.
【1】 【2】（Editor：ZhangQian、Huang Jin）
Related reading
Never Give up: Nobel Laureate in Literature MunroBritish Nobel Prize-winning writer diesThree U.S. economists share 2013 Nobel Prize in EconomicsRussia says OPCW qualified for Nobel Peace PrizeAre Nobel prizes out of reach for Chinese scientists?Three scientists share Nobel Prize in ChemistryBackgrounder: Winners of Nobel Prize in Chemistry since 2003Three scientists share Nobel Prize in Chemistry'God particle' scientists win 2013 Nobel Prize in PhysicsBelgian, British scientists share 2013 Nobel Prize in PhysicsWe RecommendHeavy cargo flights taking offIn pictures: PLA's digital equipmentAmericans mark Thanksgiving Day with paradesLove searching stories in citiesShanghai shrouded in heavy fogOffice ladies receive ‘devil’ training in mudChanges in Chinese dancing cultureHighlight of Mr Bodybuilding and Miss Bikini ContestPicturesque scenery of Huanglong, NW ChinaName:
本站仅提供存储服务，所有内容均由用户发布，如发现有害或侵权内容，请
点击举报。
