There are plenty of awards granted for great work in computer science, electrical engineering, or any number of other fields.

It doesn't make them Nobel prizes.

At least the ACM never attempted to hang on the coattails of the the Nobel Prize by naming the Turing award for Alfred Nobel.

>At least the ACM never attempted to hang on the coattails of the the Nobel Prize by naming the Turing award for Alfred Nobel.

Aren't they riding on the coattails of Turing instead?

Turing wasn't nearly as well known as he is now. The cryptoanalysis of the Enigma remained classified until the early 1970s, long after the Turing award was established (the first award was given in 1966).

Arguably Goldin winning for pure empirical work falls under science just as much or more than the Khaneman prize

No, a newly named award shouldn't really have any existing clout associated with it, and can make it's own reputation. The Turing award is not treated like a nobel prize by pretty much anyone, though it is respected.

Economics decided that kind of thing, say a "Smith award" wouldn't get them enough clout, so better to abuse a brand name for it's value. How classic.

Im sorry but to a normal person the Fields medal or Turing award is treated the exact same as the Nobel prize in whatever discipline.

Are you sure? How many normal people even know the Fields medal or Turing award even exists?

Note that neither of your two examples is carried out by people who think of themselves as economists.

Very interesting examples. For Nash, Von Neumann contributions to the field were orders of magnitude more important. For Kahneman and Tversky let's not forget that the foundations are quite shaky to quote [0]

[0] https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe...