Science
Related: About this forumThe Tragic Science
Nature, among the world's most cited scientific journals (often credited with the highest "Impact Factor" among such journals) features, in every issue a "Top Five Science Books" section.Here's the link to the current issue's list: Greta Thunberg on climate solutions, and more: Books in brief
Subtitle:
Here's a book on the list that definitely caught my eye:
George F. DeMartino Univ. Chicago Press (2022)
With its reductive view of human nature, economics was called the dismal science in the nineteenth century. Economist George DeMartino prefers tragic science, because so many adherents have been willing to ignore harm in pursuit of growth. Their calling validated the imposition of whatever harms were necessary to get the job done, he concludes. Such hubris has been tempered by global financial disasters and climate change, but the profession still requires major reform, he trenchantly argues.
Nature 612, 210 (2022)
Here is the publisher's blurb, a little more detailed: The Tragic Science
A relevant excerpt from it:
We hear from all sorts of fools, here and elsewhere that economics (usually short term - it's appalling how few people have a shred of concern for future generations) is the most important thing there is. This often comes up, ironically, over in DU's E&E forum, where short lived consumer junk is hyped as being cheap, even though most of it is an affectation for rich people that's manufactured by poor people at the expense of their health and well being.
This of course, is the attitude of my one time "peace and love" generation, now mostly the war and consume generation, the baby boomers.
I am trying not to buy more books; we have run out of space in our home to put more of them, but my public library doesn't seem to have it. I may do that awful consumer thing to "stimulate the economy" and either buy it or ask for it for Christmas.
How can I possibly be a baby boomer if I can't be a hypocrite?
I trust you're having a great weekend.
4dog
(520 posts)Wishful thinking. Lots of data, no good cause and effect. A lever of power.
NNadir
(34,666 posts)The locution in this respect is suspect.
Wounded Bear
(60,691 posts)much like the social sciences where there is perhaps a lot of data, but not necessarily a lot of solid cause and effect proofs.
When people and behaviors get involved, predictability suffers.
Warpy
(113,130 posts)Just because there are a lot of numbers attached doesn't make it particularly able to be replicated in a lab.
I offer the cautionary tale of Long Term Capital Management, headed up by Nobel winning economists who devised a mathematical formula for playing the markets in such a way that losing became impossible. Until they did. It's quite a story.
c-rational
(2,867 posts)that 'the well being of future generations should be given the same weight as the present one'. He died too young.