Frankly, I think the Nobel prizes in the sciences are carrying the name.
Also, Aung San Suu Kyi won her Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, 26 years ago. How old is that? Well, that was the year that the world-wide-web was born. Kurt Cobain was still alive. George Bush was in office and was just 'George Bush', not 'George Bush Sr' (and the first Bush war against Iraq started in January). The Soviet Union still existed, dissolved only in December of that year. Street Fighter II hit the arcades. The Rodney King beating sparked the LA riots. The war that gave us the term 'ethnic cleansing' started that year in Yugoslavia. Apartheid was still going on in South Africa, with a couple of years left to go. Linus Torvalds announces Linux on comp.os.minix.
Calling the Nobel Peace Prize bullshit because a recipient behaves differently-to-expected a generation later is itself bullshit.
It was a "please prove you're not like Bush" prize. The election of Obama is the first time I've seen widespread parties with non-Americans celebrating the election of an American president.
Don't underestimate just how terrifying a lot of the world saw the willingness of the US to elect Bush not once but twice (now imagine how we feel about Trump).
One might argue Obama failed to live up the aspirations of giving him the price to some extent, and hope they learn from that, but that's a different issue.
> Aung San Suu Kyi--currently accused of genocide.
Two things: She is not generally "accused of genocide". There is a real argument to be made that she should not stay quiet, and that she is not doing enough, and there is the fear that this might be because she might even agree with the violence or have an antipathy for muslims, but to my knowledge there is no clear evidence about why she has remained quiet on the matter and certainly nothing to imply that she has personally been involved in making decisions on the matter. Of course that doesn't prove she is innocent either, but it's a bit early to start throwing around accusations she is part responsible for genocide.
Secondly, the price was awarded a long time ago. When it was awarded, she deserved it. Maybe she's changed. The price is very specifically not awarded for "lifetime good behavior" unless that is specifically the reasoning used by the committee, but generally for specific acts or specific service set out when it is awarded.
There might be an argument that it'd be better to hand it out posthumously so a persons whole life could be considered, but AFAIK the terms of the Nobel Prizes specifically prevent posthumous awards other than in special circumstances (which generally have been treated as if the award is decided before the Nobel Committee is aware that the nominee has died), not least because part of the intent is to encourage people to continue to do good.
This has famously "backfired" on the committees in the sense that for example Gandhi was nominated several times, and lost out in part because of concerns that were relevant at the time (e.g. in 1947 diary notes from the committee chairman shows that concerns over the Indian-Pakistani conflict were raised as objections for giving it to him at that time), and where the committee appears to have expected there'd be a better time to award it.
By the time of his death, and certainly for many years afterwards, an award would have been relatively uncontroversial, but the it was too late. Gandhi was nominated again in 1948, died right before the end of the nomination window, the committee considered it, since there were some degree of openings in the rules given the timing. But instead the committee decided not to award the prize at all that year saying "there was no suitable living candidate" - given that Gandhi was the only prominent nominee in 1948 that was dead when the decision was made it was a very clear message, but the committee did not believe they could award it to him posthumously.
Name one Nobel prize winner in economics with whom you disagree the awarding and explain your disagreement.
Otherwise your comment can be dismissed as another vapid "I disagree with the economics Nobel because the economic science sometimes disagree with my preferred political ideology".
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
The point is the poster above was trying to diminish the field of study's legitimacy. Reading between the lines of his post he was doing so because of his political leanings, not because he disagreed with any particular contribution of a economics Nobelist's contribution to human knowledge.
We should aspire to be above of such toxic ideologism.
If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too.
The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self-congratulatory and self-important than they already do.
I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs.
(Also I suspect that there might be some linguistic misunderstanding here, maybe some participants are used to think in a language where the most common translation of "science" does not include the subset of social sciences?),
Them credentials!
ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
I read Nobel in Economics as 'Nobel in maths (largely statistical optimization) and behavioural psychology'. I personally believe the field adds significant value to society.
That said, I do think the award is rather liberally given away. We credit scientists only when their theories test out in practice with sufficient evidence whereas we are more willing to give economists a pass in the name of 'not enough data' or 'valid under certain conditions' . I think we should award only the fundamental time tested truths (statistical or otherwise) which are so entrenched in the way of the world that its discovery has little or no bearing on its exact function. This would award Nash/Selten but not Merton/Scholes. The basic option pricing ended up being just a bunch of really cool but limited equations which tend to be self fulfilling prophecies until when they don't.
Matter of fact turned out to be that politicians and laymen only listen to the economics they want to hear, Nobel or not.
I think we should aspire to be above reading between the lines. When we do so, we tend to see that which we want to see, regardless of the author's intent.
> I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.[...] the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.
> This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence.
> But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.
> There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society - as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.
That behavior which he describes... sounds like any Nobel Prize in Economics you know?
---
[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
> macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes [0]
This is largely due to what the US fed did in response (the US gov. fiscal stimulus probably helped some but not on the same scale). Luckily the fed was headed by Ben Bernanke, one of the most erudite scholars of the Great Depression at the time the world economy was hanging on by a thread.
Nobel prices in peace are ridiculous. Not talking about (fake) Nobel prices of Economy that do not exist but have managed to buy themselves some recognition because the money printing of central bankers.
For me this article is absurd. If you have a better way of giving to science, create your own price with your own money.