tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post290325466746822733..comments2023-11-19T20:38:50.237-08:00Comments on Economic Logic: Econophysics: an introductionEconomic Logicianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-5545919889533451932011-09-23T01:54:52.484-07:002011-09-23T01:54:52.484-07:00Being a Physicist and having read a lot of papers ...Being a Physicist and having read a lot of papers in the field of Econophysics, I do not agree with many of my colleagues who are looking into finance with a "the sky is the limit" attitude. Maybe theories in Economics are not that consistent and accurate but none can make new theories out of scratch. There is at least some truth. Another strange thing, though, is that most of our fellow Physicists, manage to publish only in some Physics journals and not in serious economic or finance journals. Well...there is a reason for that, relative to the structure of a "physics" paper and an "Economic" paper. I have talked much with researchers in Economics and most of them agree that for a paper to be published in an Economic journal there must be a good story supporting it. And by story I don't mean the actual idea for the modeling and the derivation of results. Sometimes, I fear, that this story is considered to have more impact than actual data. In contrast, a paper in Physics looks first at the data and than tries to make an appropriate story-theory. I agree, though, that a lot of papers in Econophysics do not provide any story. Maybe, in this context, I can answer to Kansan, why papers written by physicists are only six pages long. But, their effort is to analyzing the data an not linking them to some broadly known theory or story.V.L Rendoumisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-19671313345585465892011-09-07T14:03:44.091-07:002011-09-07T14:03:44.091-07:00Apparently both the invisible hand and market effi...Apparently both the invisible hand and market efficiency are axioms of economics. Ugh. I've read enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-52423295999799917922011-09-07T09:11:50.813-07:002011-09-07T09:11:50.813-07:00I'm also somewhat skeptical about econophysics...I'm also somewhat skeptical about econophysics - although I can't say to have studied it in detail, the few papers I've seen were pretty lame. And the fixation on financial markets can be annoying, especially when accompanied by strong, yet unsupported claims about economics and economists in general.<br /><br />Nevertheless, there are surely better reviews of the field than this one, which is basically just a rehash of general information from Wikipedia plus authors' uninformed commentary. For example, (although I haven't read the whole thing,) recent paper by Chakraborti et al. (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1974" rel="nofollow">arXiv:0909.1974</a>) seems to provide much better review of actual research done by econophysicists.ivansmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-60909073379185045112011-09-07T08:12:17.832-07:002011-09-07T08:12:17.832-07:00Why does it not surprise me that a paper written b...Why does it not surprise me that a paper written by physicists is only six pages long, does not develop any argument and needed five co-authors?Kansannoreply@blogger.com