Economics is the new astrology ...

[Baruch]

https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers

Y'all won't like the short essay I saw that says that Big Data is the new phrenology.  You won't believe in a miracle working Jewish carpenter ... but you are schmos for mathematicians ;-)

This is why you can't trust math ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Infinity sounds nice, but nobody has ever been able to add it up. They always die before they get there..

[Unbeliever]

Wow, after watching that I think my IQ is -1/12!   

[Baruch]

Wow, after watching that I think my IQ is -1/12!   

Those particular Brits have the most amazing elementary math videos ... Americans can't even count that high ;-)

[Unbeliever]

Americans think that counting high is either what astronauts do in the space station or determining how many joints they've smoked today.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Americans think that counting high is either what astronauts do in the space station or determining how many joints they've smoked today.

They don't?  When did this shit not happen?

[Hakurei Reimu]

You shouldn't trust mathematicians... all the time.

The mathematical voodoo here only works if you're allowed to rearrange infinite sums in particular ways. If you accept the legitimacy of the operation, then these results follow naturally. But you have to accept the legitimacy of the operation, and there are good reasons not to do so. Other ways of deriving the result require you to accept less-than-kosher things as legitimate. Of course, doing so can sometimes yield wonderful results, which is why such extensions are toyed with.

Where economics comes to grief is its intersections with the real world. Like any complex system, the economy has unpredictables governing its behavior that go outside the assumptions, and ultimately has factors beyond the control of any person or humanity. Chaos rules.

[josephpalazzo]

You shouldn't trust mathematicians... all the time.

Math is just a mapping between two sets. As long as one is consistent in the definition of what constitute the elements set A and the elements of set B and consistent with the definition of the mapping, the resulting math will be consistent. Now, there are some math systems that have no practical use. However, one should always be cautious in that judgment. Case in point: Grassmann developed a math system in the 1860's which had no use whatsoever. Even the great physicist Hamilton at the time dismissed Grassman's paper as confused and of little use. However in the 1960's, people realized that his math system perfectly describes fermions. Today, if you want to learn QFT, you need to learn about Grassmann numbers. So it's not the mathematicians you shouldn't trust but those who don't understand math...;-)

The mathematical voodoo here only works if you're allowed to rearrange infinite sums in particular ways. If you accept the legitimacy of the operation, then these results follow naturally. But you have to accept the legitimacy of the operation, and there are good reasons not to do so. Other ways of deriving the result require you to accept less-than-kosher things as legitimate. Of course, doing so can sometimes yield wonderful results, which is why such extensions are toyed with.

The famous Σ n = -1/12 can be proven on a complex plane using the Eulerâ€"Riemann zeta function. I have a blog on that one when I was struggling with it.

See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/03/zeta-function-is-ok.html

Where economics comes to grief is its intersections with the real world. Like any complex system, the economy has unpredictables governing its behavior that go outside the assumptions, and ultimately has factors beyond the control of any person or humanity. Chaos rules.

Even the most chaotic system can be represented as a Fourier sums, so stretching this to its extreme logical conclusions: anything and everything can be described by a mathematical system. (Even people working on AI believe that self-awareness can be designed with a math system)

[Hakurei Reimu]

Math is just a mapping between two sets. As long as one is consistent in the definition of what constitute the elements set A and the elements of set B and consistent with the definition of the mapping, the resulting math will be consistent. Now, there are some math systems that have no practical use. However, one should always be cautious in that judgment. Case in point: Grassmann developed a math system in the 1860's which had no use whatsoever. Even the great physicist Hamilton at the time dismissed Grassman's paper as confused and of little use. However in the 1960's, people realized that his math system perfectly describes fermions. Today, if you want to learn QFT, you need to learn about Grassmann numbers. So it's not the mathematicians you shouldn't trust but those who don't understand math...;-)

I have no argument here except pointing out that I wasn't talking about math, but mathematicians. That is, people. As Dr. House is fond of saying, "People lie." My corollary: "Even when they don't lie, people are pretty crap reliability."

The famous Σ n = -1/12 can be proven on a complex plane using the Eulerâ€"Riemann zeta function. I have a blog on that one when I was struggling with it.

See: http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/03/zeta-function-is-ok.html

Counting doesn't take place on the complex plane. A proof dependent on the complex plane is free to be ignored by people who don't buy into imaginary numbers.

I've never really come to terms with the complex plane. A lot of it still seems like voodoo. :-(

Even the most chaotic system can be represented as a Fourier sums, so stretching this to its extreme logical conclusions: anything and everything can be described by a mathematical system. (Even people working on AI believe that self-awareness can be designed with a math system)

But which mathematical system? That's the 64 M$ question. It doesn't do anyone any good to say, "There's a mathematical model that represents it," unless you have a specific model in mind â€" and even then, you'd still have to prove it in experiment.

[josephpalazzo]

Counting doesn't take place on the complex plane. A proof dependent on the complex plane is free to be ignored by people who don't buy into imaginary numbers.

Then these people have just nixed 100% of QM and 50% of electromagnetism. And we know that QM and EM describe the real world, otherwise it would be back to candle light reading as all the progress in physics in the last 200 years is due to the use of complex numbers.

In the realm of mathematical objects, "imaginary" numbers are as real as "real" numbers. The words "real" and "imaginary" are misleading. Call them A-numbers and B-numbers. And you've removed that obstacle.

I've never really come to terms with the complex plane. A lot of it still seems like voodoo. :-(
But which mathematical system? That's the 64 M$ question. It doesn't do anyone any good to say, "There's a mathematical model that represents it," unless you have a specific model in mind â€" and even then, you'd still have to prove it in experiment.

For the people working on AI, it's a work in progress. But they have to believe that self-awareness can be input into a math system, otherwise all of their work would be an exercise in futility.

[Duncle]

I sort of agree with the OP, but also sort of don't. I'll explain...

Imo Economics is very much the new Astrology/ Phrenology- that is to say, its a load of pseudoscientific crap. However, this isn't anything to do with Mathematics. Maths is fine- it may seem weird a lot of the time, but thats not in itself an argument against it. After all, QM is not only supported by massive empirical evidence, its also incredibly practically useful, and nothing is weirder than QM. So the Omigod that's so counterintuitive that it must be wrong kind of reaction (an argument from personal incredulity) just doesn't cut the mustard.

The problem with Economics isn't Maths. The problem is its underlying assumptions. Mathematical economic models work fine in the abstract, but Economists mistakenly assert that the variables in the models really do correspond to varibles in the real world. The biggy here is human behaviour, which is far more complex and unpredictable than Economists assume. Another major issue is information- many classical models assume that all market participants have perfect knowledge, which in reality is never the case.

Rather than seeing Economics as a Science, it might be more accurate to view it as an advanced form of political rhetoric.