So, I wrote that paper for the IEA on the FTT. Which was published in a journal. So I’ve actually produced a piece in a peer reviewed journal.
Which sorta makes me a scientist.
Yes, I know, more a comment on low barriers to entry than anything else.
But I find that this paper has been cited. Here.
Worstall, T. (2011). The case against a financial transactions tax. Institute of Economic Affairs. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
OK, so it looks like a Master’s thesis more than anything else. And it’s from hte Alma Mater to boot and we all know how the old boy’s network operates.
But does this count as a “real” citation and if it does does this mean I iz a real scientist now?
22 responses so far ↓
1 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
No, it means you’re a real economist. To be a real scientist you would have had to publish in a scientific field.
2 So Much For Subtlety // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:16 am
Matthew L – “No, it means you’re a real economist. To be a real scientist you would have had to publish in a scientific field.”
Adam Smith never published a peer-reviewed article in his life.
But that is harsh. Way too harsh. Whatever else you can say about economists, at least they are not climatologists. Give them some respect.
3 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:37 am
I’m a Rutherfordian – physics is the only real science, the rest is just stamp collecting.
4 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:38 am
Incidentally, I do respect economics, it’s a very useful discipline. It’s just not scientific.
5 prog // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:52 am
@ Matthew. I wish I had paid more attention to physics lessons at school. And maths….
6 dearieme // Apr 28, 2012 at 11:52 am
Now, if you’d published something weighty on the FFT that would be different.
7 Eddy // Apr 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“I’m a Rutherfordian – physics is the only real science, the rest is just stamp collecting.”
To get a glimpse of the truth, hi over to xkcd and search for the purity cartoon.
8 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I prefer a practicality weighted purity metric…
9 Richard // Apr 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Tim, to have really made it you need your peer-reviewed journal article to be cited in a peer-reviewed journal article.
10 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Richard: Still pretty neat though. Any citation is an achievement (except self-citation).
11 The Pedant-General // Apr 28, 2012 at 6:58 pm
@eddy,
Here:
http://xkcd.com/435/
For those that don’t know about xkcd at all.
12 Matthew L // Apr 28, 2012 at 7:57 pm
When viewing that XKCD cartoon, pay particular attention to the mouse-over text.
13 Dave Tufte // Apr 28, 2012 at 10:59 pm
As an economist, who chose this field over physics, I object.
The sense in which sciences other than physics are “not scientific” is that they are either not experimental, or because they are observational. A physicist has a theory and then runs an experiment. A chemist might run the experiment, but really doesn’t have the theory. An economist might have the theory, but probably can’t run the experiment.
In lots of ways that physicists think of science, economists are far more scientific. But, I agree that economists don’t have the “total package” that physicists do. I just hesitate to define science as only being that total package (which tends to be short on stuff like replicability and falsifiability).
14 Dave Tufte // Apr 28, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Anyway, Tim, I think you have a real problem claiming you iz a reel scientismist.
No one starts to put on that face until they start producing research that isn’t read by anyone after it’s published.
You’re positions are read far too often to be taken seriously as science by people who can’t get anyone to read their stuff at all.
15 dearieme // Apr 29, 2012 at 1:35 am
Still, economists are the only mob to invent a fake Nobel Prize just to make their physics envy unmistakable.
16 Tim Newman // Apr 29, 2012 at 7:56 am
Scientists, shmientists. It’s engineers who do the real work.
17 So Much For Subtlety // Apr 29, 2012 at 8:40 am
Tim Newman – “Scientists, shmientists. It’s engineers who do the real work.”
Sort of like the char ladies of the scientific world?
18 Spartacus Mills // Apr 29, 2012 at 8:52 am
Oh fuck off you ignorant monkey.
Pseudo-scientific economics bollocks doesn’t make you a scientist. Read a peer-reviewed paper from nature and then shut up. Go back to spouting your rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed ‘opinions’ to those fools who read ‘em on teh interweb. Cock.
My work here is done.
19 dearieme // Apr 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“Read a peer-reviewed paper from nature…”: well, as long as it’s not Climate Sciencebollocks.
20 Matthew L // Apr 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Arnald is off his meds again?
21 Richard // Apr 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Matthew, yes, the boy done well. But important to give him his next challenge.
22 Eddy // Apr 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Thanks for making that link Mr Pedant-General.
Leave a Comment