Is Economics A Science?

[Michael]

Billions for the bankers: Debts for the people

Published in 1982

"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers."

Can you see the problem with Economics? This person is probably completely at odds with Joe. There's no Hypothesis to test. No experiment to run, repeat, and analyze. It's called INDUCTIVE reasoning.
(regarding the quote, that is pretty interesting if true)


Observe an event. Look for a pattern (mathematical model). This is when the Hypothesis is drawn. And finally a Theory is produced. It's completely at odds with the Scientific Method. Which is why economists are never going to agree - ever. Whereas experiments CAN be run and repeated to your own satisfaction in real Science


Will the Euro last one year? If so, what's the statistical significance of that prediction? I don't think ANYONE can make this prediction. Which is why the study of the economy, that is: Economists, is not a Scientific endeavor - it can't make reliable predictions.



Economists can't make real predictions. Ask yourself how many predicted the 2008 GFC. What? Maybe 3 out of 100,000 "Economists" worldwide?



Soft Science is more than generous Joe, you stepped in the ring, that shows you've got something hanging there. Now concede your utter destruction, annihilation and total defeat!!!

 

[Michael]

Since I posted the quote, I thought I'd post a review (the book is actually a mini essay 40 pages).

From AMAZON

This is Sheldon Emry's short but very informative booklet "Billions for Bankers - Debts for the People" (1982) which vividly explains how nations can be conquered purely by the ever increasing debt to banking institutions. History reveals nations can be conquered by the use of one or more of three methods. The most common is conquest by war. In time, though, this method usually fails, because the captives hate the captors and rise up and drive them out if they can. Much force is needed to maintain control, making it expensive for the conquering nation. A second method is by religion, where men are convinced they must give their captors part of their earnings as "obedience to God." Such a captivity is vulnerable to philosophical exposure or by overthrow by armed force, since religion by its nature lacks military force to regain control, once its captives become disillusioned. The third method can be called economic conquest. It takes place when nations are placed under "tribute" without the use of visible force or coercion, so that the victims do not realize they have been conquered. "Tribute" is collected from them in the form of "legal" debts and taxes, and they believe they are paying it for their own good, for the good of others, or to protect all from some enemy.

Their captors become their "benefactors" and "protectors". Although this is the slowest to impose. It is often quite long lasting, as the captives do not see any military force arrayed against them, their religion is left more or less intact, they have freedom to speak and travel, and they participate in "elections" for their rulers. Without realizing it, they are conquered, and the instruments of their own society are used to transfer their wealth to their captors and make the conquest complete.

In 1900 the average American worker paid few taxes and had little debt. Last year, payments on debts and taxes took more than half of what he earned. Is it possible a form of conquest has been imposed on America? Read the following pages and decide for yourself. A must read for everyone.

 

[joepistole]

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....

Oh, so now Websters is biased. I suppose all the other dictionaries and encyclopedias are biased as well. This is a typical "conservative" response. The number one rule for conservatives; ignore all evidence no matter how respectable the source when in conflict with conservative ideology. That is why your leaders are constantly assailing institutions of higher learning and media sources not controlled by your leaders.

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?

Despite several references Michael, you don't seem to understand that inductive versus deductive reasoning has nothing to do with the determination of economics as a science. It is just not germane. It is chaff.

 

[hansda]

I think 'economics' mostly deals with money . If a theory can be developed for 'money-flow' , like current-flow of physics ; the science nature of economics can be developed to a great extent .

 

[joepistole]

Billions for the bankers: Debts for the people

Published in 1982
Can you see the problem with Economics? This person is probably completely at odds with Joe. There's no Hypothesis to test. No experiment to run, repeat, and analyze. It's called INDUCTIVE reasoning.
(regarding the quote, that is pretty interesting if true)

Observe an event. Look for a pattern (mathematical model). This is when the Hypothesis is drawn. And finally a Theory is produced. It's completely at odds with the Scientific Method. Which is why economists are never going to agree - ever. Whereas experiments CAN be run and repeated to your own satisfaction in real Science

Will the Euro last one year? If so, what's the statistical significance of that prediction? I don't think ANYONE can make this prediction. Which is why the study of the economy, that is: Economists, is not a Scientific endeavor - it can't make reliable predictions.

Economists can't make real predictions. Ask yourself how many predicted the 2008 GFC. What? Maybe 3 out of 100,000 "Economists" worldwide?

Soft Science is more than generous Joe, you stepped in the ring, that shows you've got something hanging there. Now concede your utter destruction, annihilation and total defeat!!!

LOL well get this Michael, there are lots of scientists in virtually every field who do not agree on issues. Another thing that you seem not to understand is that the scientific method is a process. It is not a golden rod.

 

[Michael]

Oh, so now Websters is biased.

It is biased. Not towards Economics. What Webster attempted to do was dissect arguments against the existence for God and use definitions to make it impossible construct a logical argument God doesn't exist. Beginning with the definition of the word God itself.

Luckily for us, it didn't work

My point being, just because some other human somewhere says a word is defined by these other words, does not mean it calls fourth reality into existence.

(I'll touch on religion and your hypothesis here at the end

Despite several references Michael, you don't seem to understand that inductive versus deductive reasoning has nothing to do with the determination of economics as a science. It is just not germane. It is chaff.

Deductive versus Inductive reasoning goes to the very heart of what "Science" is. It has EVERYTHING to do with Science. As a process, the Scientific Method is DEDUCTIVE. While there's no one method, they are all deductive processes.

Again, all I can think is that you just don't understand what Science is? :shrug:


Economics is by necessity inductive. It's not possible to run "real" experiments on "real" economies. Some sociologists run mini-experiments (such as surveys and game theory) thus the "soft" science was generously granted to you Joe. Be grateful


Anyway, again, I implore you to ask yourself: How many Economist predicted the 2008 total utter destruction of the global economy? What? Maybe 2 to 10 in total across the entire world's millions of "Professional" Economists (Haa! reminds me of Professional Shaman or Professional Psychics). If Economics were a science, then it'd be a defunct one. Imagine the embarrassment all these "Professors" in Economics must have felt when they all missed the biggest melt down in modern history WHILE teaching so-called "Economics".

When that happens in Medicine, Biology, Physics, Chemistry that field is considered DEFUNCT.

Examples include: Phrenology (study of the bumps on the skull) or æther (theory that this elemental material fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere).

So Joe, why don't Sociologist's dump the defunct theory of Keynesian economics? Actually, WHEN will we know IF Keynesian economics is defunct? Because they can't!! This brings me to point #2, a Scientific theory MUST BE DISPROVABLE. If a theory cannot be rejected because it cannot be tested, then it's more akin to religion than Science (by definition is can not BE Scientific).

Which is why I said I was being more than generous with soft/social science.




Now, lick your wounds and admit your have been crushed! Utter decimation. There doesn't exist a word to describe your total annihilation in this debate Joe. Maybe we'll call it Joeihilation

 

[joepistole]

It is biased. Not towards Economics. What Webster attempted to do was dissect arguments against the existence for God and use definitions to make it impossible construct a logical argument God doesn't exist. Beginning with the definition of the word God itself.

Luckily for us, it didn't work

My point being, just because some other human somewhere says a word is defined by these other words, does not mean it calls fourth reality into existence.

LOL, yeah. This is you and your conservative fellows denying reality again. The reality is, Websters Dictionary as well as many others define economics as a science. And economics is widely recognized as a science.

Your refusal to recognize long established credible references does not prove you case Michael.

(I'll touch on religion and your hypothesis here at the end

Deductive versus Inductive reasoning goes to the very heart of what "Science" is. It has EVERYTHING to do with Science. As a process, the Scientific Method is DEDUCTIVE. While there's no one method, they are all deductive processes.

Again, all I can think is that you just don't understand what Science is? :shrug:

I suggest you go back and reread the material on Scientific Method. Because it is clear that you didn't understand it.

Economics is by necessity inductive. It's not possible to run "real" experiments on "real" economies. Some sociologists run mini-experiments (such as surveys and game theory) thus the "soft" science was generously granted to you Joe. Be grateful

Anyway, again, I implore you to ask yourself: How many Economist predicted the 2008 total utter destruction of the global economy? What? Maybe 2 to 10 in total across the entire world's millions of "Professional" Economists (Haa! reminds me of Professional Shaman or Professional Psychics). If Economics were a science, then it'd be a defunct one. Imagine the embarrassment all these "Professors" in Economics must have felt when they all missed the biggest melt down in modern history WHILE teaching so-called "Economics".

When that happens in Medicine, Biology, Physics, Chemistry that field is considered DEFUNCT.

Examples include: Phrenology (study of the bumps on the skull) or æther (theory that this elemental material fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere).

So Joe, why don't Sociologist's dump the defunct theory of Keynesian economics? Actually, WHEN will we know IF Keynesian economics is defunct? Because they can't!! This brings me to point #2, a Scientific theory MUST BE DISPROVABLE. If a theory cannot be rejected because it cannot be tested, then it's more akin to religion than Science (by definition is can not BE Scientific).

Which is why I said I was being more than generous with soft/social science.

Now, lick your wounds and admit your have been crushed! Utter decimation. There doesn't exist a word to describe your total annihilation in this debate Joe. Maybe we'll call it Joeihilation

LOL, What can I say. I am always amazed at folks like you Michael. You cannot win the argument; you repeatedly ignore facts, evidence and reason; and dismiss all evidence that does not comply with your "conservative biases" as biased.

So let's do a summation of your arguments:

1) You cannot believe long established and credible references like Websters Dictionary along with several others that define economics as a science.

2) You have to ignore the Scientific Method and throw up a bunch of nonsense related to deductive and inductive reasoning. Science uses both.

3) If you build a predictive model or if you don't build predictive model and it fails, it is not a science. Using your created and unique definition of scientific method, much of what is not widely regarded as science would not be a science. Geologists fail to provide models predicting earth quakes. Therefore according to you, geology is not a science.

Much to you chagrin your refusal to acknowledge reality - evidence and reason - does not make you correct and it does not prove your case. Reality is that economics is a science based on empirical evidence.

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

Michael I just love it when you and your fellow conservatives get backed into a corner. Because you guys always end in the same fashion. You are so threatened, you have to proclaim your self victorious and beat on your chest because no one else will do so.

I am a little old fashioned Michael. I don't believe in creating new meanings for long well established words. I believe in accepting information from credible sources even at the expense of my political point of view.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Maybe a soft science, like psychology. The business cycle is not the equivalent of the carbon cycle.

Take scientist as employing the scientific method to discover truths. I guess one could do scientific research on the behavior of non player characters in Neverwinter Nights too.

 

[hansda]

I would like to ask : " Is there a theory of money-flow ? " , similar to the theory of current-flow .

 

[Michael]

LOL, yeah. This is you and your conservative fellows denying reality again. The reality is, Websters Dictionary as well as many others define economics as a science. And economics is widely recognized as a science.

Your refusal to recognize long established credible references does not prove you case Michael.


I suggest you go back and reread the material on Scientific Method. Because it is clear that you didn't understand it.



LOL, What can I say. I am always amazed at folks like you Michael. You cannot win the argument; you repeatedly ignore facts, evidence and reason; and dismiss all evidence that does not comply with your "conservative biases" as biased.

So let's do a summation of your arguments:

1) You cannot believe long established and credible references like Websters Dictionary along with several others that define economics as a science.

2) You have to ignore the Scientific Method and throw up a bunch of nonsense related to deductive and inductive reasoning. Science uses both.

3) If you build a predictive model or if you don't build predictive model and it fails, it is not a science. Using your created and unique definition of scientific method, much of what is not widely regarded as science would not be a science. Geologists fail to provide models predicting earth quakes. Therefore according to you, geology is not a science.

Much to you chagrin your refusal to acknowledge reality - evidence and reason - does not make you correct and it does not prove your case. Reality is that economics is a science based on empirical evidence.

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

Michael I just love it when you and your fellow conservatives get backed into a corner. Because you guys always end in the same fashion. You are so threatened, you have to proclaim your self victorious and beat on your chest because no one else will do so.

I am a little old fashioned Michael. I don't believe in creating new meanings for long well established words. I believe in accepting information from credible sources even at the expense of my political point of view.

Joe, look up Liberal in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of me With the exception of fiscally. I believe in good ole fashion work hard, save, invest. In the past THAT wouldn't be considered 'conservative'.



Regarding if Economics is a Science or not. No, it's not. It does not follow the Scientific Method at all.

As for you not understanding the importance of deductive and inductive reasoning, I think this goes to your not understanding what Science IS. It's a system of thought, an approach to describing nature. In short: A philosophy.

What you think Science is, is something you tag onto the front of your pet discipline or hobby in an attempt to lend it an air of credibility. THAT is exactly the opposite of what Science is. Science is about being skeptical. Thinking deductively and, in your case, excepting you've had your arse handed to you in this debate In reality, it shouldn't matter if economics IS or IS NOT "Science". Would it change the way you think about economics? Would it change the way "economics" is practiced? No, I think not. So, this means it all about wanting to say economist is a Science and economists are therefor Scientists.

Sorry Joe, but if you can't perform the Scientific Method as a process of inquiry, (a deductive process) then no it's not Science. Attempting to model past events is just that - attempting to model past events. This might be used to form the basis of a future scientific inquiry, but is itself not Science.

Hopefully that clears that up,

 

[Michael]

I would like to ask : " Is there a theory of money-flow ? " , similar to the theory of current-flow .

You mean:

It is used for pressure and flow in an idealized pipe - that's about it :shrug:

 

[Michael]

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.".
- Keynesian economist J K Galbrait

(He's also famous for this quote: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.")

As they say: Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing. Specifically, Myrdal and Hayek shared one.

 

[Michael]

A man is walking along a road in the countryside and comes across a shepherd with a huge flock of sheep. He tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished because that is exactly right. The shepherd agrees and says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.

"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." The man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?"

"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I'll tell you."

 

[Michael]

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

 

[Michael]

A civil engineer, a chemist and an economist are traveling in the countryside. Weary, they stop at a small country inn. "I only have two rooms, so one of you will have to sleep in the barn," the innkeeper says. The civil engineer volunteers to sleep in the barn, goes outside, and the others go to bed. In a short time they're awakened by a knock. It's the engineer, who says, "There's a cow in that barn. I'm a Hindu, and it would offend my beliefs to sleep next to a sacred animal." The chemist says that, OK, he'll sleep in the barn. The others go back to bed, but soon are awakened by another knock. It's the chemist who says, "There's a pig in that barn. I'm Jewish, and cannot sleep next to an unclean animal." So the economist is sent to the barn. It's getting late, the others are very tired and soon fall asleep. But they're awakened by an even louder knocking. They open the door and are surprised by what they see: It's the cow and the pig!

 

[Michael]

NATURAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Newlan's Truism: An "acceptable" level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job.

 

[Michael]

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity". The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace". The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" (Adapted from Economist June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[charles brough]

Billions for the bankers: Debts for the people

Published in 1982
Can you see the problem with Economics? This person is probably completely at odds with Joe. There's no Hypothesis to test. No experiment to run, repeat, and analyze. It's called INDUCTIVE reasoning.
(regarding the quote, that is pretty interesting if true)

Observe an event. Look for a pattern (mathematical model). This is when the Hypothesis is drawn. And finally a Theory is produced. It's completely at odds with the Scientific Method. Which is why economists are never going to agree - ever. Whereas experiments CAN be run and repeated to your own satisfaction in real Science

Economists, is not a Scientific endeavor - it can't make reliable predictions.



Soft Science is more than generous Joe, you stepped in the ring, that shows you've got something hanging there. Now concede your utter destruction, annihilation and total defeat!!!

Then just what do you think economics is? A pseudo-science, ideology, a scam? Does it have to follow the same methods followed by the physical sciences? The whole idea of the scientific method is unclear and flexible. It is not something that can or ever has been laid out clearly and accepted by a concensus.

Economics is a study of business law, the history of the evolution of economic theories, general principles (such as that the price level ultimately matches the rise and fall of the amount of currency and extended credit). Economics is useful in being based upon generalizations that are not, of course, without exception such as they are in other sciences.

It is useful for very short term business predictions. It is especially hampered in the prediction field because it operates within swarm theory with the result that the economy tends to do what is the least expected.

 

[Michael]

Then just what do you think economics is? A pseudo-science, ideology, a scam?

An art, practice and philosophy. Some social experiments are scientific. As economics is a subtype of sociology, it could be coincided a "social" science / soft science.

It's not "hard" science.

It should be noted that "science" is NOT the ONLY way to arrive at a true understanding of reality. It's just the most reliable.

Does it have to follow the same methods followed by the physical sciences?

If it wants to be "Science" it does. As I said, science isn't the only way we arrive at truth. As a matter of fact, it's probably the least used method. Science is a minority methodology.

The whole idea of the scientific method is unclear and flexible. It is not something that can or ever has been laid out clearly and accepted by a concensus.

Regardless it's always deductive. If it's not deductive, it's not following the methodology of science.

Economics is a study of business law, the history of the evolution of economic theories, general principles (such as that the price level ultimately matches the rise and fall of the amount of currency and extended credit). Economics is useful in being based upon generalizations that are not, of course, without exception such as they are in other sciences.

I agree, it's the sociology economics. AND, I do think it's a valuable meaningful worthwhile endeavour. That said, we need to appreciate it is NOT science and economists and NOT scientists and Central Bankers are political tools.

The worse thing they did was start awarding Nobel prizes in Economics. One wonders why? Of course it's to use the tried and true Appeal to Authority which tricks 99% of citizens 99 out of 100 days.

It is useful for very short term business predictions. It is especially hampered in the prediction field because it operates within swarm theory with the result that the economy tends to do what is the least expected.

Some of the models may be very useful. Those models are only that, just models. No one has uncovered some sort of natural laws here.

 

[Faure]

Since the idea of strict demarcation between science and non-science has been effectively passe in the philosophy of science for years now, I think its better to just think about where on the continuum between non-science and science economics lies.

Clearly, I think, its much more nearly a non-science than a science. Some small areas of microeconomics are getting some scientific respectability, but on the whole the discipline is not very scientific at all.

Many economists try to get a ton of mileage out of bogus claims of the scientific status of economics, though. The idea seems to be that if you ape the notation of real sciences (i.e. use lots of fancy math) it automatically makes you a scientist and your discipline a science.