Does this mean I iz a real scientist now?

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 thoughts on “Does this mean I iz a real scientist now?”

  1. 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

    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. “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.

  4. Tim, to have really made it you need your peer-reviewed journal article to be cited in a peer-reviewed journal article.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. Still, economists are the only mob to invent a fake Nobel Prize just to make their physics envy unmistakable.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Scientists, shmientists. It’s engineers who do the real work.”

    Sort of like the char ladies of the scientific world?

  9. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *