Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by antidesitter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

antidesitter

> The Exile was always a little bit over the top.

A little? It's obvious they have an ideological axe to grind, even stooping to name-calling.

> I'm pretty sure the history of the prize is accurate.

What about its history is accurate?

> Because that's so blatant in using the reputation of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize in Economics has existed since 1968 and, like I said, is awarded by the same institution as the other prizes, in the same ceremony, and in accordance with the same rules governing the awarding of the other prizes. What's dubious about that?

> to bolster their own questionable discipline.

What discipline is questionable?

View on HN

What discipline isn't questionable?

Theology and to a lesser extent, mathematics.

> A little? It's obvious they have an ideological axe to grind, even stooping to name-calling.

It's called understatement.

The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

> What about the history of the prize is accurate?

The purpose of starting the prize.

> The Nobel Prize in Economics has existed since 1968 and, like I said, is awarded by the same institution as the other prizes, in the same ceremony, and in accordance with the same rules governing the awarding of the other prizes. What's dubious about that?

Sure, but it is not a Nobel Prize. It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.

> What discipline is questionable?

Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.

> The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

Not sure why I should ever respect reporting that doesn't even attempt to be objective. If you are not aware of your biases, they have a tendency to irreparably color your "facts".

Art and Literature aren't sciences, either.

Hmm, Computer science isn't a science either, so what?

> The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

Why should I respect reporting that doesn't claim any sort of objectivity? How can I trust reporting that doesn't even aspire to be objective?

> The purpose of starting the prize.

Can you be more specific?

> It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.

Can you explain why you think it is a "parasitic growth"?

> Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.

What definition of "science" are you using? Is literature a science? Is peace a science?

What about anthropology? Geography? History? Linguistics? Political science? Psychology? Sociology?

Do you think computer science and electrical engineering are "questionable disciplines"? If not, what point did you intend to illustrate with them in your original comment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com