Take a Lesson from the Economists Economics is the dismal science:so say the large number of people who heap scorn on the intellectual merits of the discipline,Much of the criticism comes from “pure” or “proper”scientists-physicists,chemists and biologists.Now,economics certainly has its failings.But the general way in which economists approach and describe the world,and how they convey their message about it to others,carries lessons which pure scientists should learn from. 经济学是一门忧郁的科学，很多人都嘲笑这个学科获得的智力成果。这其中的很多批评都来自于所谓的纯科学学科或者合理的科学学科-物理，化学和生物。当下，经济学当然是有它的不足。但是经济学家发现和描述世界的方式，以及他们如何向别人传达与之有关的信息，其实是有很多地方值得这些纯科学家学习的。 Economics has inexactitudes and vagueness built into it.The general lack of reliable data about past events makes virtually impossible the accurate measurement of even the most basic economic variables,such as the total volume of output in a country,or the path of consumer spending,or inflation. 经济学包含很多不精确性和含糊性。经济学一般缺少可靠的过去事件的相关数据，这导致即使是最基本的经济学变量也精确的估量出来，例如一个国家的总产出量，或者是消费者消费的路径，或者是通货膨胀。 If economists are haze about what is going right now,they are even less sure about the future.Due to the general measurement difficulties,as well as unforeseen events such as wars or natural disasters,economic forecasts are almost always wrong,sometimes by wide margins.As for economic theories,they change almost according to fashion,with economists allowed to move effortlessly between them,sometimes holding several contrasting points of view at the same time. 如果经济学家对现在所发生的事情都很模糊，那么他们对未来的事情就更加不确定了。由于普遍的度量困难，以及一些不可预见的事件诸如战争和自然灾害等的发生，经济学的预测几乎通常是错的，有时有很大的回旋余地。至于经济学的理论，它们则几乎是根据时尚而改变的，经济学家可以不费力的转换观点，有时甚至可以同时持几个对立的观点。 The contrast with scientists could not be starker.The tools of an economist’s trade are muddy data,loose theorising and a shambling approach to causality which says that a set of interactions between A,B and C MIGHT lead to a conclusion Z and only via a roundabout route which takes in P,Q and R as well.Scientists have a harder-edged way of looking at the world,requiring a set of rigid theories and data based on painstaking experimental observation. 他们与一般的科学家的对比再大不过了。经济学家研究使用的工具是含糊的数据，不牢靠的理论和并且通过拖沓的方法得到一个因果关系，这种因果关系描述了A、B和C间的一些列关系“可能”导致结论Z，并且仅仅通过一个迂回路线又推出了P、Q和R。科学家看世界则通过更加锋芒毕露的方式，需要一套基于艰苦的实验观察得出的严格的理论和数据。 But the economists have been able to use the vagueness with which their subject is afflicted to their advantage.By concentrating on broad conclusions to problems and communicating these in terms that can be understood by the special interest groups they are dealing with,economists have had a generally good record in assimilating themselves into positions of influence.Scientists have done rather less well by concentrating on the nature of problems rather than on the conclusions or policy prescriptions. 但是经济学家却已经能够将含糊不清这个使他们的学科受攻击的特点转换成他们的优点了。通过集中于问题的宽泛的结论并且用那些他们所面对的有特殊兴趣的组织可理解的术语来交流这些结论，经济学家往往能够把自己视为有影响力的群体。科学家则只是集中于自然的问题上，而在结论和政策方案上做的很少。 All this explains why,in British at least,economists as a body of people have had much more success in purely professional terms over the past 20 years than scientists. 这些都解释了为什么，至少在英国，经济学家是一群在过去20年里在纯专业领域里得到的成功远比科学家多的人。 Take the posts in the Britain government of chief scientific adviser and chief economist.In the first position,Bill Stewart has a thin power base,playing a marginal role in providing scientific advice to dozens of government departments.The second job takes the incumbent to the centre of the government’s decision-making machinery in the Treasury,and into involvement with many of the most important decisions ministers make about how Britain should operate. 就拿英国政府里的首席科学顾问和首席经济学家这两个职位来说。在第一个职位上，Bill Stewart权力基础很弱，只在为许多政府部门提供科学顾问中扮演一个不重要的角色。第二个职位则成为政府决策的重要决策者，制定财政部的机构组织，并且参与到很多首相作出的关于英国如何运作的最重要的决策中。 In industry,top scientists working for big firms such as ICI or IBM certainly are in strong positions.But the ability of such people to influence events is put into the shade by the power of economists working for the big international banks and investment houses in the City of London.The broad judgments of these people about global economic patterns ,transmitted by numerous direct and indirect ways,form a key component of thousands of decisions made at company level at the grass roots of industry. 在工业企业中，为诸如ICI或者IBM这种大公司工作的顶级科学家当然在很重要的职位上。但是这种人影响事情的能力和那些为伦敦市的大型国际银行和投资公司的经济学家相比就显得黯然无光了。这些经济学家对于全球经济模式的宽泛判断，通过许多次直接和间接的传递就成为了数以千计的工业基层的公司级别作出的决策的核心组成部分。 How did economists get to be in this position-and what can scientist learn from them?Despite the difficulty in arriving at hard answers to many of the problems in economics,people in the discipline have shown an ability to skim over the inexactitudes,to come up with a general view of the world in terms that are relevant and make sense to those outside the profession. 经济学家到底是如何到达这个位置，科学家又能从他们身上学到什么呢？不考虑这个学科的人无法找到很多困难的经济问题的答案，他们展现出一种可以跨过精确的能力，他们可能提出一个关于世界的一般性的观点，这些观点是和专业之外的人有关并且有意义的。 As an example,consider a single topic of relevance to a wide body of people-the flow of capital around the world,Finding out about where all the world’s money is going and why and how and at what rate is of obvious importance to anyone interested in investment decisions and the competitive advantages of specific nations over others. 举个例子，考虑一个与一大帮人有关的问题，世界的资金流。找到全世界的钱都到那儿了，为什么会流动，怎么流动的，以什么比率流动，这很显然对于每个对投资决策和在特定国家中的竞争优势感兴趣的人都很重要。 Every few minutes,banks and other institutions are switching hundreds of millions of dollars from country to country in a pattern that is far from clear.The goal on each transaction is to move money into a region where the returns are higher and so chalk up a profit,Working out what is going on in this vast exercise,and the important influences that are at play,is vital to understanding a host of issues involving the buildup of wealth in the modern world. 没几分钟，银行和其他机构都在国家和国家之间用一种一点也不清楚的方式周转着数百万美 本文来源：https://www.wddqw.com/doc/d90fde47a98271fe910ef930.html