This time Andrew Gelman–one of my favourite bloggers, otherwise– is too pessimistic, exaggerates a lot, not to mention that he misinterprets the essence of Robert Hanson’s post , which he takes as starting point of his entry… In my opinion, the gist of Hanson’s is something completely different, aka ‘negative’ public incentives social scientists might often face (think, eg: Truman searching for one-armed economists that could never give him the ‘on the one hand…but on the other hand’)– that other scientists do not typically have to deal with– which could alter the true ‘scientific’ message etc. etc. But turning back to Gelman’s discussion, all that might just hold (anybody among the other social scientists willing to stand up for his/her discipline’s cause or this is it, you cannot but agree? :-)) if you do not count Economics among “social sciences”, for his purpose. Because if you do, that alone would change the argument dramatically; come to think of economists vs. other social scientists vs other scientists, do re-read this short older entry of mine :-). In all humbleness: Economics is (read also: did & currently does) much more than what Gelman seems to suggest…
PS. Let me state it clearly. I eventually switched from Maths & Theoretical Physics to Economics precisely because I thought (& still think!) that Economics (proper Economics, that is; trust we’re talking about that and not, for instance, Euronomics: that beast still roams free) was way more challenging (and that is in no way meant to say that Maths, in particular, and certain other natural sciences, do not elicit very much my passion, still)… and I have been all my life looking for ever bigger challenges: I am a ferocious challenge hunter :-). But perhaps Gelman’s reason for sticking to social sciences, rather than natural sciences, was the opposite? 🙂
