If that’s the distinction, it would have been helpful for the original comment to note that they were just sharing some silly trivia instead of making a point.
It's not a silly piece of trivia, it's a completely different thing than what people think of as the "Nobel Prize", which is the set of prizes established by Nobel's will, not an unrelated prize named after him to leech off the prestige associated with his name.
The reason people correctly view this as silly trivia is that it's hardly an "unrelated prize." The Nobel Foundation administers the Economics prize in the same manner as all the others, and the awards are given at the same ceremony. You are making it sound like it's entirely separate when it's not. I don't think the Nobel Foundation was trying to "leech off the prestige associated with his name."
AFAICT your take exists entirely to delegitimize economics as a science. Very childish and frustrating.
>> It's not a silly piece of trivia, it's a completely different thing than what people think of as the "Nobel Prize", which is the set of prizes established by Nobel's will, not an unrelated prize named after him to leech off the prestige associated with his name.
> AFAICT your take exists entirely to delegitimize economics as a science. Very childish and frustrating.
You know, real sciences don't need shiny medallions to make them legitimate. I'd say your comment delegitimizes economics more than the GP's.
The price was created, and is given, by the Nobel Foundation, which was set up by Nobel's will to carry out his last wish. If you go to the official page of the Nobel Prize the Prize in Economic Sciences is listed with the other Nobel Prizes. Its not one of the original Nobel Prizes, but claiming its a completely different thing is not true.
The price was created by Sweden's central bank, not the Nobel foundation. It's true that it's now considered a Nobel prize proper for most, but that's not to say that it originally wasn't the economics field leeching on the scientific prestige of Nobel. To be honest, it feels pretty on-brand for it. And fwiw, in Swedish, it's almost always clearly distinguished with a "in memory of Nobel" or similar in the surrounding context.
The way they presented the information, it is a silly bit of trivia. If there wanted to make some sort of argument about prestige or whatever, they could have made it. Dropping hints of some niche rabbit hole issue is not making a good-faith argument.
The so called "Nobel Prize in Economics" wasn’t created by Nobel himself, a scientist and engineer, but by a grant from the Swedish Central Bank. The actual money for prize every year is not paid from the Nobel foundation funds, is paid by the endowment created by the bank. It pays the Nobel Foundation administrative expenses and the monetary component.
Its basically economists trying to launder their way into science by proximity. Like Astrology lobbying to get a physics badge.
So as example in 1974, they awarded the prize to Friedrich Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal. Two economists whose views could not be more opposed. That is like awarding the Physics Nobel jointly to someone who says “objects fall down” and another who insists “objects fall up.” Or honoring two chemists, one who says “water freezes at 0°C” and the other who claims it freezes at 5°C.
And if you say that would never happen, because physics has actual empirical standards then yes, exactly. You get the point.
Even Paul Samuelson, a 1970 economy nobel laureate and actual champion of applying mathematical methods to economics, dismissed Hayek’s most famous work.
Which, intentionally or not, remains the most accurate definition of economics I’ve ever seen: A discipline where ideology often outweighs evidence and both sides get prizes.
