An article written by an economics professor in the prestigious Scientific American (Apr 1995), is a good reflection of science envy in economists. Its exaggerated title is "The Analytical Economist". Five of the six columns are concerned with his view of Laplace's use of statistical inferences made from the planes of orbit of comets, and a discussion of research into the effect of aspirin on men who have heart attacks. This economist's view of science was presumably included to impress the editors and readers of the Scientific American. However this economist exposes his lack of scientific credentials by using, what he calls a technical term, "oomph".

Could it be that the Scientific American published his nonsense to expose the fantasies of economists wishing to be thought of as scientists?

Here is the whole of the economics part of the article:

"... you may get statistically impeccable answers that make little difference to anyone or 'insignificant' ones that are absolutely crucial. That conundrum is sharpest among economists about the minimum wage. David Card and Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University have used tests of statistical significance to argue there is no convincing evidence that the minimum wage has a strong effect. Most economists disagree, both because that their theory tells them otherwise and because they think Card and Krueger are asking for too much certainty. But both sides are muddled about the difference between oomph and statistical significance, the disagreement is not likely to get resolved in time to help Congress. Depending on what legislators decide, many poor people (not to mention teenagers on summer vacation) might lose their jobs. Ironically, even if they do, economic samplers may not be able to prove how many jobs were lost or that the minimum wage really had an effect."

What do you make of that?

Obviously part of this economist's agenda is to influence political decision making (in this case Congress). It was very evident in my university economics classes that the lecturers thought that economists should be running the government.

MORE SCIENCE ENVY.

A correspondent writes that he suspects that just not economists, but other social scientists try to emulate "hard" scientists like physicists and chemists treating people as things. He writes:

"Presumably you've read John Ruskin's ("Unto This Last") who thought economics was a pseudo-science, perfectly consistent but not about the real world. Another Victorian writer who had his knife into economists was William Cobbett. The term for economics in these days was "political economy". A Professor William Jevens invented a "reasoning machine" in 1866 and thought economics should be treated as an exact mathematical science. He was the pattern for the villain in a very early story by Arthur Ransome, The Blue Treacle."

He provided a quote from The Last Englishman by Lt/Col A D Winter (Michael Joseph):

" I remained in the place for as short a time as possible. It was my misfortune to have to dine with the Principal of the place, a professor of Economics. Economics, what little I know of it, has always appeared to be either a bastard art or a misguided science. And its professors have invented for their convenience a cunning terminology specifically contrived to make it appear difficult, involving such abortions as the Marginal Workman. In a long life of much work I have yet to come across one of these Marginal Workmen. ... You'd think that, as a compensation for their rather useless lives, they would at least have a sense of humour but they have not."