this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
607 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

18326 readers
1366 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] smeg 44 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I struggle to consider it scientific because it bakes in so many fundamental assumptions without questioning them. At least mainstream economics.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 56 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ah, uh, it's a xkcd. Expanded by a reddit user, forever ago.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago

Philosophy is in entirely the wrong place for some reason. Should be slightly to the right of maths.

As someone that tries to be a bit of a generalist. Neoclassical economics is the one field of study where I have less respect for the field the more I learn about it and the problems that it tries to tackle.

[–] kriz@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago

For this reason it seems closer to religion for me

[–] thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Don't all scientific fields rest on fundamental assumptions? I mean, just to pull an example at random, astronomers were hung up on the geocentric model of the universe for a long time before we came up with the heliocentric model, which in turn was ditched for the "no true frame of reference" model we now use. Having flawed assumptions doesn't make it non-scientific, just incorrect.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What makes a difference is how models are evaluated in light of new evidence. If a model makes predictions that turn out to be incorrect, then a big part of scientific progress is in re-examining the underlying assumptions of the model.

My beef with economics isn't that it's often wrong, but that economists are often keen to present themselves as scientists to boost their epistemic authority, whilst also acting in a deeply unscientific way.

The worst economists for this get very offended if you say that economics is a soft science, with more in common with psychology than physics. This offends them because they hear "soft science" as a pejorative. Economics absolutely is a science, but the more that economists try to pretend that their object of study isn't wibbly wobbly as hell, the less I respect them.

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd consider economics a subgenre of sociology.

Yeah, I think I'd agree with that. Although it's gotten large enough that it doesn't feel like a subset of sociology anymore, it still feels descended from sociology. (To give an example of what I mean by being large enough it's now distinct from sociology, biochemistry sprang forth from biology/biomedicine, but now is its own distinct field, with methods and modes of inquiry that are distinct from biology/biomedicine)

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If making unproven assumptions is problematic then physics is in some real deep shit.

[–] thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I mean, yeah. We don't have a unified theory of quantum gravity because at least one of our assumptions is off. Science is just figuring out precisely which assumptions are wrong and how wrong they are.