What doesn't make sense is postulating the existence of some reified "real" value of money, and then claiming that it has changed by 2.61% or whatever since last year. (Not to even mention the even more outlandish attempts to evaluate this change in "real" value across decades and centuries, or to compare them across vastly different places, where even the set of things available on the market is largely different, as well as all sorts of further reifications such as the "real" GDP.)
I would like to hear a more detailed criticism of the "real value of money" concept specifically. Human height varies over the course of a lifetime, over the course of a day, and geographically, and yet it is fairly clear that people are taller on average now than during the middle ages. And by different operationalizations we can measure how much taller. Isn't it also clear that people are richer on average now that during the middle ages? Are you arguing that any attempt to measure how much richer is doomed to be misleading?
Statistics about human height are not a good analogy, since the concepts are simple and straightforward enough that they can be readily dissolved and their connection to reality re-evaluated if necessary. But many other "social science" numbers are indeed as bad as those found in economics, in the sense that even a casual rational evaluation of these numbers will reveal critical problems that are nonchalantly ignored in the regular "scientific" practice in these areas. (Though it would probably be hard to find anything as perverse as th...
A Wall Street Journal article by Harvard professor of government Harvey Mansfield claims that the social sciences and humanities are inferior to the sciences. The article implicitly urges undergraduates to major in science. From the article:
Do you agree with this? As a game theorist I probably have a rather biased view of the situation. It's certainly true that the ideal of the scientific method is vastly better than the practice of economists, but I think that majoring in economics provides better training for a rationalist than majoring in any of the sciences does.
Economics explicitly considers what it means to be rational. Although it infrequently considers ways in which humans are irrational, I'm under the impression that the hard sciences never do this. Furthermore, because economists can almost never perform replicable experiments we have to rely on what everyone in the profession recognizes as messy data; therefore we’re far more equipped than hard scientists to understand the limits of using statistical inference to draw conclusions from real world situations. Although I have seen no data on this, I bet that a claim by nutritionists that they have found a strong causal link between some X and heart disease would be treated with far more skepticism by the average economist than the average hard scientist.