Yes, we do run RCTs. There are entire branches of economics that can be entirely controlled for, double-blind and randomized. For example microeconomic theory and game theory.
Natural experiments are used all the time in many fields, especially the social sciences, for ethicality. That doesn’t make them less valuable, as they test for things you would have never gotten to test for through RCTs, and don’t serve as a “crutch” due to the lack of RCTs. They serve different purposes.
And that’s just one aspect people get wrong, economics isn’t all about straight lines like another (vehemently wrong) commenter was saying. It’s also not about politics, even though the economics of politics are taught conceptually. At least in my European university, no one forced ideology with the study of the median voter theorem or Vickrey auctions, among many other topics.
Anyway, rant over. This whole post is a rage-bait and people engaging in it are either ignorant of the subject matter (totally fine if you’re willing to learn and accept you’re wrong) or simply rage-baiters themselves.
My apologies, I didn’t mean to imply you never run RCTs, mostly that it’s rarer that other disciplines and most of what lay people know of your science comes from non RCT work. I’ll have to take a peak at that paper you linked as it looks interesting.
Your point on natural experiments is on point as they are dreams come true for many social scientists (thought sadly not always pleasant ones in recent times).
I also have to agree this post is pure rage bait. People dunk on social sciences all the time but would have their brains melt trying to learn Structural Equation Modeling and the concept of the Latent variable. My arguments with economists usually comes from my place as an IO psychologist who argues about labour and labour markets not if your science is real. It’s sad how many will look st economics as useless in the same breadth they venerate figures like Marx. People need more education not less.
Yes, we do run RCTs. There are entire branches of economics that can be entirely controlled for, double-blind and randomized. For example microeconomic theory and game theory.
Yes, there are fields that get unethical to experiment under as you scale things up (think macroeconomics), which is why we have famous papers like The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation - AJR.
Natural experiments are used all the time in many fields, especially the social sciences, for ethicality. That doesn’t make them less valuable, as they test for things you would have never gotten to test for through RCTs, and don’t serve as a “crutch” due to the lack of RCTs. They serve different purposes.
And that’s just one aspect people get wrong, economics isn’t all about straight lines like another (vehemently wrong) commenter was saying. It’s also not about politics, even though the economics of politics are taught conceptually. At least in my European university, no one forced ideology with the study of the median voter theorem or Vickrey auctions, among many other topics.
Anyway, rant over. This whole post is a rage-bait and people engaging in it are either ignorant of the subject matter (totally fine if you’re willing to learn and accept you’re wrong) or simply rage-baiters themselves.
My apologies, I didn’t mean to imply you never run RCTs, mostly that it’s rarer that other disciplines and most of what lay people know of your science comes from non RCT work. I’ll have to take a peak at that paper you linked as it looks interesting.
Your point on natural experiments is on point as they are dreams come true for many social scientists (thought sadly not always pleasant ones in recent times).
I also have to agree this post is pure rage bait. People dunk on social sciences all the time but would have their brains melt trying to learn Structural Equation Modeling and the concept of the Latent variable. My arguments with economists usually comes from my place as an IO psychologist who argues about labour and labour markets not if your science is real. It’s sad how many will look st economics as useless in the same breadth they venerate figures like Marx. People need more education not less.