Is Economics A Science?

[Michael]

RE: Texas sharpshooter fallacy

To be Science one must apply the Scientific Method. No barns here Joe



PS: Both the Republicans AND the Democrats (including Obama) are corrupt and suck. Stop chewing your cud and leave the gods damn paddock! Or lick Obama's hand and you're milked and sent off to be slaughtered like all the other cattle.

 

[joepistole]

RE: Texas sharpshooter fallacy

To be Science one must apply the Scientific Method. No barns here Joe

PS: Both the Republicans AND the Democrats (including Obama) are corrupt and suck. Stop chewing your cud and leave the gods damn paddock! Or lick Obama's hand and you're milked and sent off to be slaughtered like all the other cattle.

LOL,yes in order to be a science the scientific method must be employed. And in economics, it is.

You have not proven that Obama is corrupt. Just saying something does not make it so. I am sure you will have no problem finding a corrupt Democrat here and there. But this is not about a few corrupt people here and there. This is about systemic and deeply embedded corruption and a matter of degree.

The Republican Party, your party, likes to use government to support crony capitalism. They do that by manipulating the sheep with the media and spreading false information (e.g. economics is not a science and higher institutions of learning cannot be trusted because they are "liberals").

 

[Michael]

LOL,yes in order to be a science the scientific method must be employed. And in economics, it is.

You have not proven that Obama is corrupt. Just saying something does not make it so. I am sure you will have no problem finding a corrupt Democrat here and there. But this is not about a few corrupt people here and there. This is about systemic and deeply embedded corruption and a matter of degree.

The Republican Party, your party, likes to use government to support crony capitalism. They do that by manipulating the sheep with the media and spreading false information (e.g. economics is not a science and higher institutions of learning cannot be trusted because they are "liberals").

You're the one who said Bush Jr was corrupt. Where's the evidence? He's not been charged with a single thing. Geee he must be an angel.

Note: I do think Bush was corrupt. They ALL are.

Note #2: I'm not a "Republican". I said, I'm going to registrar in their primary to vote. I'm also going to vote in the Democrat primary.


Give me an example of an economic experiment that follows along the lines of an acceptable Scientific Method. You need not bother looking up a citation. Just give me an example off the top of your head. Include the dependent variable, independent variable(s), control variables. What is the sample size? What would be an acceptable alpha value? How many times will the experiment be repeated?

The Scientific Method follows Deduction Joe, not Induction.




I'll give you a quick example of a hypothesis.
If O2 production is related to a warming temperature then increasing temperature will see plants of a similar size produce more O2.

DV = O2 production (here measured as a reduction in CO2 of a given volume).
IV = Temperature (we'll pick 7 off the tops of ours heads, 4, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60C
Control = food, soil, starting CO2, light exposure, plant size, leaf number, etc...
Groups will equal 10 plants each.
Experiments are repeated 5 times.
Alpha is 0.01


That took me about, 4-5 minutes to make up off the top of my head. I'd like to see an example of an "Economists" experiment.

 

[joepistole]

You're the one who said Bush Jr was corrupt. Where's the evidence? He's not been charged with a single thing. Geee he must be an angel.

Note: I do think Bush was corrupt. They ALL are.

Note #2: I'm not a "Republican". I said, I'm going to registrar in their primary to vote. I'm also going to vote in the Democrat primary.

Is there a point? You acknowledge that Bush Junior ran a corrupt administration. As for your political affiliation, you are an avid supporter of Ron Paul - a Registered Republican running for President on the Republican ticket.

Give me an example of an economic experiment that follows along the lines of an acceptable Scientific Method. You need not bother looking up a citation. Just give me an example off the top of your head. Include the dependent variable, independent variable(s), control variables. What is the sample size? What would be an acceptable alpha value? How many times will the experiment be repeated?

The Scientific Method follows Deduction Joe, not Induction.

I'll give you a quick example of a hypothesis.
If O2 production is related to a warming temperature then increasing temperature will see plants of a similar size produce more O2.

DV = O2 production (here measured as a reduction in CO2 of a given volume).
IV = Temperature (we'll pick 7 off the tops of ours heads, 4, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60C
Control = food, soil, starting CO2, light exposure, plant size, leaf number, etc...
Groups will equal 10 plants each.
Experiments are repeated 5 times.
Alpha is 0.01

That took me about, 4-5 minutes to make up off the top of my head. I'd like to see an example of an "Economists" experiment.

This Michael if frankly silly and has been previously address. You have been provided with evidence that shows the study of economics as practiced by modern scholars is a science. Your refusal to acknowledge same doesn't make the previously provided evidence any less real.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2867727&postcount=7

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2867967&postcount=19

Economics is defined by Websters (remember the dictionary) as a science.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics

Here is one of my problems with people who share your point of view Michael, they like to invent new meanings for well established words in order to justify their political ideology. I my world Michael, ideology should be based one evidence and reason and we should not invent new definitions of long accepted word definitions just to fit the ideology of a few individuals.

 

[Michael]

Joe, I've reread those posts and again all I can say is you're confused as to what "Science" is and what the process of Scientific Methodology is for uncovering new information.

The only time an "economist" is going to apply any method anywhere near to the Scientific Method is going to be social experiments such as game theory. Which is why I gave it a pass into the 'soft' science category. A sub-discipline of sociology.

Mathematical modeling past events is NOT the Scientific Method. That's not deductive, but inductive. I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

Perhaps you'd care to clarify your position by describing an economic experiment that follows the scientific method of deductive reasoning? If not, I'm going to have to assume you simply swam a little further out of your depth No biggie, we forgive you. Just get on the other side of the pool marker and you should feel the bottom soon enough






That aside, this is what I don't get?
Why are you so blinded to the fact that Obama's administration is in reality Bush Jr's third term? I'd argue he's worse than Junior. Junior was a cow, cattle, he barely understands modern English. One can't really blame a dumb animal for being the cattle it is. Obama OTOH is an intelligent person. He wants to be a Farmer. He's happy to sell you Joe. That is heinous, but it is what it is. Pretending it's something it isn't is pointless, dangerous even. You WANTING to be cattle.... that's damn near inexcusable. I mean, come on. You WANT to be milked?!?! You like you're little paddock you have!?!?!? The gate opens a little and you stand there looking cow-eyed chewing your cud.

I don't get it.
Why?

Does regurgitated grass taste that tasty?
Really?
Is it THAT tasty???


PS: I'm an independent. I vote in both the Democrat and Republican primaries.

 

[hansda]

Nowadays , lot of mathematics are being used in 'economics' . Mathematics is pure science . So, 'economics' has to be a science .

 

[joepistole]

Joe, I've reread those posts and again all I can say is you're confused as to what "Science" is and what the process of Scientific Methodology is for uncovering new information.

IF you read them, then you certainly do not understand them. When you have to start rewriting the dictionary to support your contentions - as people with your point of view are want to do - then your argument has serious problems.

The only time an "economist" is going to apply any method anywhere near to the Scientific Method is going to be social experiments such as game theory. Which is why I gave it a pass into the 'soft' science category. A sub-discipline of sociology.

Mathematical modeling past events is NOT the Scientific Method. That's not deductive, but inductive. I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

Perhaps you'd care to clarify your position by describing an economic experiment that follows the scientific method of deductive reasoning? If not, I'm going to have to assume you simply swam a little further out of your depth No biggie, we forgive you. Just get on the other side of the pool marker and you should feel the bottom soon enough

So using your reasoning if the study involves the past, then it is not science. That is just an absurd position. Michael, I suggest you go back and do some reading on the Scientific Method and visit the dictionary as well. But we both know that is not going to happen. Because the answers you will find there are not compatible with your cognitive biases.

That aside, this is what I don't get?
Why are you so blinded to the fact that Obama's administration is in reality Bush Jr's third term? I'd argue he's worse than Junior. Junior was a cow, cattle, he barely understands modern English. One can't really blame a dumb animal for being the cattle it is. Obama OTOH is an intelligent person. He wants to be a Farmer. He's happy to sell you Joe. That is heinous, but it is what it is. Pretending it's something it isn't is pointless, dangerous even. You WANTING to be cattle.... that's damn near inexcusable. I mean, come on. You WANT to be milked?!?! You like you're little paddock you have!?!?!? The gate opens a little and you stand there looking cow-eyed chewing your cud.

I don't get it.
Why?

Does regurgitated grass taste that tasty?
Really?
Is it THAT tasty???


PS: I'm an independent. I vote in both the Democrat and Republican primaries.

There are a lot of frustrated conservatives that are calling themselves "Independents" these days. But that doesn't really mean they are Independents in the traditional way of viewing politics. I was Independent when Independent wasn't cool. You are changing the subject from the OP to Obama. Obama is not an extension of the George Junior Administration - no matter how much you want it to be.

Obama has gone back to fiscal responsibility. The fact that you don't want to recognize the fact, does not mean it is not so. The man took an economy that was shrinking at a 9 percent annual rate and loosing almost a million jobs a month to an economy that has been consistently growing at a modest 2-3 percent and adding about a 100k private jobs to the economy every month. That is not George II. Obama has not had a Treasury Secretary quit because of his administrations fiscal irresponsibility as happened to George Jr..

What you are advocating is Ron Paul's position which runs contrary to just about everything including history and science in preference for the old crystal ball approach.

 

[Michael]

Nowadays , lot of mathematics are being used in 'economics' . Mathematics is pure science . So, 'economics' has to be a science .

Mathematics shouldn't be considered "pure" science, I think of it as a language but I suppose it's really the study of quantities or changes in quantities.

Note the word "pure". As if Science were something unblemished (a virgin?). Science is the knowledge produced from applying the Scientific Method (which, unlike a virgin mathematician is blemished at the alpha level [generally 0.01]).

 

[Michael]

IF you read them, then you certainly do not understand them. When you have to start rewriting the dictionary to support your contentions - as people with your point of view are want to do - then your argument has serious problems.



So using your reasoning if the study involves the past, then it is not science. That is just an absurd position. Michael, I suggest you go back and do some reading on the Scientific Method and visit the dictionary as well. But we both know that is not going to happen. Because the answers you will find there are not compatible with your cognitive biases.

You have yet to provide a single example of an economic experiment that follows the hypothetico-deductive method. You keep saying economics is a Science. You've posted Websters' definition (as if you can define it into existence). You've neglected to provide an example of an economic experiment. I'm now wondering if any even exist :shrug:


WIKI begins by describing Economics as a "social" Science. One wonders, why the qualifier? Why "social" science and not just "Science".

WIKI descibes "scoail Science" as being "Social" research.

Social research methods may be divided into two broad schools:

Quantitative designs approach social phenomena through quantifiable evidence, and often rely on statistical analysis of many cases (or across intentionally designed treatments in an experiment) to create valid and reliable general claims.

Qualitative designs emphasize understanding of social phenomena through direct observation, communication with participants, or analysis of texts, and may stress contextual and subjective accuracy over generality

Social scientists will commonly combine quantitative and qualitative approaches as part of a multi-strategy design.

WIKI: Social Quantitative design

quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of social phenomena via statistical, mathematical or computational techniques. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena.

Here I'd like to note: Statistical techniques can be applied to Inductive reasoning which is NOT the Scientific Method (which is deductive). This is probably why you are confused. You see the word "statistics" and suddenly you think, oh, this is Science. Well, it's not. Some statistics is pure math.

What's important is the and/or hypothesis. As this might led us to something that's actually "Science". So? What sort of "experiments" are run? Well, most are via survey. The better ones are sophisticated game theory. However, these only say something about economics. You can't actually run a "real" experiment on a "real" economy AND repeat it.




Thus, we say, soft science (or if you prefer) social science.




SO, let us agree Economics is, at best, a "Social" science

 

[Michael]

There are a lot of frustrated conservatives that are calling themselves "Independents" these days. But that doesn't really mean they are Independents in the traditional way of viewing politics. I was Independent when Independent wasn't cool. You are changing the subject from the OP to Obama. Obama is not an extension of the George Junior Administration - no matter how much you want it to be.

Obama has gone back to fiscal responsibility. The fact that you don't want to recognize the fact, does not mean it is not so. The man took an economy that was shrinking at a 9 percent annual rate and loosing almost a million jobs a month to an economy that has been consistently growing at a modest 2-3 percent and adding about a 100k private jobs to the economy every month. That is not George II. Obama has not had a Treasury Secretary quit because of his administrations fiscal irresponsibility as happened to George Jr..

What you are advocating is Ron Paul's position which runs contrary to just about everything including history and science in preference for the old crystal ball approach.

You really like to pigeon hole things. The logical falacy (we'll say: mental fart you are making is called false dilemma (also called false dichotomy). It's an either-or fallacy.

For you one is either a Democrat (a good Liberal) or they are a Republican (a bad conservative). This is not true. Everyone has some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas. For however liberal you are, you are conservative relative to someone on some ideas :shrug:


The government is too big, it's too invasive, it's too bloated and it spends too much money and it now attempting to take away many of our political rights. The pendulum has swung too far towards a centralized power and needs to swing back to empower the individual. That's not "conservative" it's human. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul. Obama is NOT interested at all in making change we can believe in and is more interested in same-o-same-o. Which is why you could hardly determine when Clinton left, Bush started, Bush left, Obama started. It's all just the same old bullshit.

 

[joepistole]

You really like to pigeon hole things. The logical falacy (we'll say: mental fart you are making is called false dilemma (also called false dichotomy). It's an either-or fallacy.

For you one is either a Democrat (a good Liberal) or they are a Republican (a bad conservative). This is not true. Everyone has some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas. For however liberal you are, you are conservative relative to someone on some ideas :shrug:

No Michael, this is you creating yet another straw man. I never said or intimated that Democrats were good and Republicans are bad. That is not nor never has been by argument.

The government is too big, it's too invasive, it's too bloated and it spends too much money and it now attempting to take away many of our political rights. The pendulum has swung too far towards a centralized power and needs to swing back to empower the individual. That's not "conservative" it's human. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul. Obama is NOT interested at all in making change we can believe in and is more interested in same-o-same-o. Which is why you could hardly determine when Clinton left, Bush started, Bush left, Obama started. It's all just the same old bullshit.

Relative to what exactly? What rights do you think you are missing? And just how is it that centralized power has swung to far and is not empowering the individual? What rights are being trampled upon?

Your grandiose statements make great fodder for people with your point of view, but in reality they are with out substance. Where is your better system? Here is the rub, you cannot point to a better system.

No where in our founding documents does it say that everyone can do whatever the hell they want to do whenever they want to do it.

 

[joepistole]

You have yet to provide a single example of an economic experiment that follows the hypothetico-deductive method. You keep saying economics is a Science. You've posted Websters' definition (as if you can define it into existence). You've neglected to provide an example of an economic experiment. I'm now wondering if any even exist :shrug:
WIKI begins by describing Economics as a "social" Science. One wonders, why the qualifier? Why "social" science and not just "Science".

WIKI descibes "scoail Science" as being "Social" research.

WIKI: Social Quantitative design
Here I'd like to note: Statistical techniques can be applied to Inductive reasoning which is NOT the Scientific Method (which is deductive). This is probably why you are confused. You see the word "statistics" and suddenly you think, oh, this is Science. Well, it's not. Some statistics is pure math.

What's important is the and/or hypothesis. As this might led us to something that's actually "Science". So? What sort of "experiments" are run? Well, most are via survey. The better ones are sophisticated game theory. However, these only say something about economics. You can't actually run a "real" experiment on a "real" economy AND repeat it.

Thus, we say, soft science (or if you prefer) social science.

SO, let us agree Economics is, at best, a "Social" science

Like I said, when you have to start changing standard word definitions (e.g. Websters) to support your argument, then there just might be something wrong with your argument.

I repeat my suggestion that you go back and verse yourself in just what is the Scientific Method. Your inductive and deductive discourse has nothing to do with scientific method. It is like finding a nail and calling it the house.

Where in the definition of Scientific Method does it say anything about being solely dependent on "deductive method of reasoning". It doesn't. That is you yielding to your biases in order to support your contentions.

"Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system as "the scientific method".[47]

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[48] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are removed from Einstein's theories — all phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton's equations are what remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories and, thus, increase our confidence in Newton's work.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[49]

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)" - Wikipedia (previously cited)/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The unpleasant fact for you is that modern economics is a science and is widely recognized as a science. It is defined as a science in Websters. And it fits all of the requirements of a science and uses the Scientific Method.

 

[Michael]

No Michael, this is you creating yet another straw man. I never said or intimated that Democrats were good and Republicans are bad. That is not nor never has been by argument.

I think most everyone here would agree you are rabidly anti-GOP and a huge Obama fan-boy

I OTOH think both parties suck

 

[Michael]

Like I said, when you have to start changing standard word definitions (e.g. Websters) to support your argument, then there just might be something wrong with your argument.

I repeat my suggestion that you go back and verse yourself in just what is the Scientific Method. Your inductive and deductive discourse has nothing to do with scientific method. It is like finding a nail and calling it the house.

Where in the definition of Scientific Method does it say anything about being solely dependent on "deductive method of reasoning". It doesn't. That is you yielding to your biases in order to support your contentions.

"Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system as "the scientific method".[47]

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[48] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are removed from Einstein's theories — all phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton's equations are what remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories and, thus, increase our confidence in Newton's work.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[49]

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)" - Wikipedia (previously cited)/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The unpleasant fact for you is that modern economics is a science and is widely recognized as a science. It is defined as a science in Websters. And it fits all of the requirements of a science and uses the Scientific Method.

Soft Science.

Take the "Business Cycle". There is nothing natural about it. One school of thought refers to this phenomenon as a product of cheap credit followed by tightening of credit. How are we to know? We can not run experiments on societies. It is not like the carbon cycle which can be tested using plants and animals. We can't experiment on societies.... yet



The Scientific Method is a method of deductive reasoning. It may not say the word "deduction" but as a process it's deductive.




Economists on the LEFT, "REAL" Scientists on the RIGHT

haha.....




Seriously, in general these are the process differences between deduction and induction:

Economists fall into the category of Induction. Whereas the Scientific Method is a process of Deduction.

 

[joepistole]

I think most everyone here would agree you are rabidly anti-GOP and a huge Obama fan-boy

I OTOH think both parties suck

Here is the deal Michael, when I say Independent, I mean just that. My decisions are not tainted by political party. That doesn't mean I don't have likes and dislikes.

I am very distressed with where the Republican movement has gone the last two decades. And as you know this is a two party system, so that makes Democrats the better party at the moment.

When reason and evidence are supplanted with fear and ignorance by one party, in this case the Republican Party, yes I am deeply offended. As for Obama, he and his administration despite enormous resistance by the Republican Party are doing the right things. Is Obama perfect? No. But I don't expect perfection in leadership. But I do expect competency and honesty, that is something I get from the current administration and have yet to see in the Republican Party.

 

[joepistole]

Soft Science.

Take the "Business Cycle". There is nothing natural about it. One school of thought refers to this phenomenon as a product of cheap credit followed by tightening of credit. How are we to know? We can not run experiments on societies. It is not like the carbon cycle which can be tested using plants and animals. We can't experiment on societies.... yet

The Scientific Method is a method of deductive reasoning. It may not say the word "deduction" but as a process it's deductive.

Economists on the LEFT, "REAL" Scientists on the RIGHT

haha.....

Seriously, in general these are the process differences between deduction and induction:

Economists fall into the category of Induction. Whereas the Scientific Method is a process of Deduction.

LOL, you just don't seem to get it Michael. When you need to redefine words to support your contentions, then maybe there is something wrong with your contentions. And the longer this discussion goes on the more words you need to redefine in order to support your claims. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole here. And economics knows no political party. It only knows evidence and reason.

There are those such as yourself who want to politicize the science. But that desire does not change the fact that modern economics is a long established science. And you and those like you need to discredit economics in order to justify your political positions which fly in the face of knowledge, history and science.

 

[Michael]

No Michael, this is you creating yet another straw man. I never said or intimated that Democrats were good and Republicans are bad. That is not nor never has been by argument.

I think most people would disagree. YOU my dear friend, are a rabid Obama fan-boy

 

[Michael]

LOL, you just don't seem to get it Michael. When you need to redefine words to support your contentions, then maybe there is something wrong with your contentions. And the longer this discussion goes on the more words you need to redefine in order to support your claims. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole



here. And economics knows no political party. It only knows evidence and reason.

There are those such as yourself who want to politicize the science. But that desire does not change the fact that modern economics is a long established science. And you and those like you need to discredit economics in order to justify your political positions which fly in the face of knowledge, history and science.

haha... I am not redefining words.

It doesn't matter if Webster's or any other dictionary defines Economics as a "Science". It either is or isn't. Webster could define a circle as having three sides, that doesn't mean a circle has three sides. IOWs, sometimes the ninny's over at Dictionary.com get it wrong.

Now, regarding the question: Is Economics a Science?

Again, look at the methodology for Deduction and the methodology for Induction. It's plainly obvious that Economists uses a system of inductive rational when they develop "models" for past economic events (based on past observations) and they then use these models in an attempt to predict future economic events.

Sorry Joe, but that's not following the scientific method (which is hypothesis driven deduction).


Economics is not science.


Note: I'm not "defining" things so that economics is not a science. I'm showing you the scientific method, explaining the differences in deduction and induction, and attempting to illustrate to you how economics falls into the induction camp which uses a totally different paradigm.

Now, that doesn't mean that the models aren't true or accurate (although I don't think they're very good TTYTT). It only means that they were not arrived at via the Scientific Method. A lot of useful medicines were discovered BY CHANCE or via trial and error. So, you shouldn't get all hung up on the fact that economics is not a science. After all, do you call yourself a Scientist? No. You call yourself a Economist (OR Obama fan-boy).

What's the rub bub?

Michael


PS: Ask yourself: Can I 'test' my Hypothesis? What are the dependent variables, independent variables, controls. Can I repeat my experiment? Can other people repeat my experiment?
If the answer is NO, then no, it's not Science. Economics is not science. It's sociology.

 

[joepistole]

haha... I am not redefining words.

It doesn't matter if Webster's or any other dictionary defines Economics as a "Science". It either is or isn't. Webster could define a circle as having three sides, that doesn't mean a circle has three sides. IOWs, sometimes the ninny's over at Dictionary.com get it wrong.

Here is the thing, Websters doesn't define a circle as having three sides. And Websters is the standard and there are many other sources and dictionaries that back up Websters on the issue of economics.

Now, regarding the question: Is Economics a Science?

Again, look at the methodology for Deduction and the methodology for Induction. It's plainly obvious that Economists uses a system of inductive rational when they develop "models" for past economic events (based on past observations) and they then use these models in an attempt to predict future economic events.

Sorry Joe, but that's not following the scientific method (which is hypothesis driven deduction).

Economics is not science.

Note: I'm not "defining" things so that economics is not a science. I'm showing you the scientific method, explaining the differences in deduction and induction, and attempting to illustrate to you how economics falls into the induction camp which uses a totally different paradigm.

Now, that doesn't mean that the models aren't true or accurate (although I don't think they're very good TTYTT). It only means that they were not arrived at via the Scientific Method. A lot of useful medicines were discovered BY CHANCE or via trial and error. So, you shouldn't get all hung up on the fact that economics is not a science. After all, do you call yourself a Scientist? No. You call yourself a Economist (OR Obama fan-boy).

What's the rub bub?

Michael

PS: Ask yourself: Can I 'test' my Hypothesis? What are the dependent variables, independent variables, controls. Can I repeat my experiment? Can other people repeat my experiment?
If the answer is NO, then no, it's not Science. Economics is not science. It's sociology.

LOL, Michael you are just digging yourself in deeper. Economics by every measure is a science. Your refusal to acknowledge same does not mean it is not so. You can dig a hole and stick your head in it. You can close your eyes and refuse to see it. And you can throw up a bunch of chaff in a vain effort to distract from the truth of the matter. But modern economics, as previously demonstrated, is a science and complies with the scientific method.

 

[Michael]

Here is the thing, Websters doesn't define a circle as having three sides. And Websters is the standard and there are many other sources and dictionaries that back up Websters on the issue of economics.

Actually Websters has a theistic bias and use definitions in order to make it difficult to construct proper sentences when debating Christians. Something to think about.

But, I digress....

LOL, Michael you are just digging yourself in deeper. Economics by every measure is a science. Your refusal to acknowledge same does not mean it is not so. You can dig a hole and stick your head in it. You can close your eyes and refuse to see it. And you can throw up a bunch of chaff in a vain effort to distract from the truth of the matter. But modern economics, as previously demonstrated, is a science and complies with the scientific method.

OK, lets back up a minute here.

Do you agree that there is a difference between Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning? If so, what is that difference?