Maximizing Shareholder Value: A Dumb Idea

[DGuller]

It's a well documented fact, at least here, that social science refrain from using mathematical models, and that is one their weakness.

I may have generalized, but it is a problem in this field.  While finance&economy have fields (econometry, financial engineering) specifically for this, you won't find an equivalent in social science.  They don't even require math beyond high school (no calculus, no stats) to be accepted in a social science field of study.  That they eventually learn to do a simple linear regression, I understand, but we're very far from finance&economy in there.

I don't know where "here" is to you (I presume it is a university), but I also note that you completely fail to provide any evidence for what you believe is "widely known" there. 

I also don't think you know what social sciences are, nor how they are performed anywhere but wherever "here" is, to you.

"They don't even require math beyond high school (no calculus, no stats) to be accepted in a social science field of study" is like saying that medicine doesn't use mathematical models because not every doctor is required to have taken calculus and stats to get accepted to medial school.  I trust that you do know that some studies of medicine do use mathematical models, all doctors not being qualified to do the math notwithstanding?

Speaking of doctors and math, doctors are notoriously terrible at math, including relatively basic probabilistic math that they really should know.  Give them a classic question about applying a test with 5% error rate, that tests for disease 2% of people have, and many will answer that 95% of those tested positive actually have the disease (instead of the actual answer of 28%).

[DGuller]

Math doesn't make science.

It can make bullshit look like science, though.

[Admiral Yi]

Math doesn't make science.

Econometrics makes science because it provides a way of disproving theories.

[Iormlund]

We don't need econometrics for that.

I can see plenty of people rummaging though garbage bins these days looking for food. That is proof enough for me to believe economists are the modern equivalent of augurs.

[Ideologue]

Some economists are pretty keen.  Paul Krugman.

[MadImmortalMan]

I should start ripping the guts out of pigeons to decide my stock trades. 

[Valmy]

I should start ripping the guts out of pigeons to decide my stock trades. 

I prefer to consult the sacred chickens.

[Malthus]

I should start ripping the guts out of pigeons to decide my stock trades. 

Heh the old ways are best. 

Reminds me of our firm's Xmas party: some woman I have no interest in struck up a conversation with me, asking if I believed in astrology and what was my sign?

I was momentarily dumbfounded by the tackiness of the come-on, but I struck back that, while I did not believe in astrology, I did believe in hepatomancy. When asked "what is that?" I provided a detailed description, which had the desired effect - she went away. 

[Admiral Yi]

We don't need econometrics for that.

I can see plenty of people rummaging though garbage bins these days looking for food. That is proof enough for me to believe economists are the modern equivalent of augurs.

How else can you disprove a social science theory?

[Iormlund]

It's social science. It doesn't need disproving.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah.

[Razgovory]

It's a well documented fact, at least here, that social science refrain from using mathematical models, and that is one their weakness.

I may have generalized, but it is a problem in this field.  While finance&economy have fields (econometry, financial engineering) specifically for this, you won't find an equivalent in social science.  They don't even require math beyond high school (no calculus, no stats) to be accepted in a social science field of study.  That they eventually learn to do a simple linear regression, I understand, but we're very far from finance&economy in there.

Please provide the documents.

[Sheilbh]

It's social science. It doesn't need disproving.

Indeed.