Is Economics A Science?

[Michael]

No. that is all nonsense. Just because you say something because you need it to be true to sustain your point of view, it does not make it true.

Likewise I'm sure

No it is really about following the scientific method and empiricism, logic and reason. Your ignorance of the subject matter Michael is not a good excuse.

As it's not possible to follow the Scientific Method to test hypothesis empirically on macroeconomic events, then it's not possible to follow that this logic to arrive at a scientifically reasoned answer to one's hypothesis.

Seems like we do agree after all:shrug:

 

[joepistole]

Likewise I'm sure
As it's not possible to follow the Scientific Method to test hypothesis empirically on macroeconomic events, then it's not possible to follow that this logic to arrive at a scientifically reasoned answer to one's hypothesis.

Seems like we do agree after all:shrug:

Here is the thing Michael, the only one not able to prove his case here with evidence and reason is you. The only one who needs to redefine the dictionary and ignore evidence here is you.

 

[hansda]

Why are you so pessimistic , about the possibilty of a theory ; which can define money-flow in the economy .

Well, I suppose it's because you're being very vague. Take your use of the word "economy" - this really doesn't explain anything about what you plan to study not how V = IR is related to it. What's best in these situations is to write the hypothesis you plan to test and define the variables as well as describe the experiment and data gathering process. Finally, the statistics that will be used to measure significance.

Once that's been repeated enough times then you could think about whether V = IR is relevant.

I think you should read about my theory on money-flow to find out , whether it is science or not .

 

[Michael]

Here is the thing Michael, the only one not able to prove his case here with evidence and reason is you. The only one who needs to redefine the dictionary and ignore evidence here is you.

I implore you to read your own link to Websters Joe

You have yet to provide a single link to a single experiment. You did provide a link to Websters dictionary. You continue to evade this issue. Provide an example of a macroeconomic experiment that follows the Scientific Methodology. We both know you're not going to do that, instead you'll come back with another ad hominin attack or red herring.

. . . . . . . . and so you have by default admitted utter defeat.


In my overabundant generosity I granted you your soft science, don't raise my ire Joe, and humbly slink away with this small gift

I think you should read about my theory on money-flow to find out , whether it is science or not .

Did you form a thread topic?

 

[joepistole]

I implore you to read your own link to Websters Joe

You have yet to provide a single link to a single experiment. You did provide a link to Websters dictionary. You continue to evade this issue. Provide an example of a macroeconomic experiment that follows the Scientific Methodology. We both know you're not going to do that, instead you'll come back with another ad hominin attack or red herring.

. . . . . . . . and so you have by default admitted utter defeat.


In my overabundant generosity I granted you your soft science, don't raise my ire Joe, and humbly slink away with this small gift

Did you form a thread topic?

When you have to reinvent the dictionary (as you do) to back up your positions, maybe there is something wrong with your position Michael. And no matter how many times you repeat your nonsensical position, it will not improve with repetition.

Economics is not chemistry. Using your definitions, geology, medicine, astronomy and a number of other widely accepted sciences would not be considered sciences.

 

[river]

guys

1) science

the state of knowing

2) a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

economics and the study of is knowledge

 

[Michael]

Economics is not chemistry. Using your definitions, geology, medicine, astronomy and a number of other widely accepted sciences would not be considered sciences.

AND????

You seem to be confusing "science" with "validity". Science is simply a process of gathering information to answer a question. If a question is not answered via that process - then it's not "science". That doesn't mean the answer is wrong. Only that it wasn't answered "scientifically".

 

[joepistole]

AND????

You seem to be confusing "science" with "validity". Science is simply a process of gathering information to answer a question. If a question is not answered via that process - then it's not "science". That doesn't mean the answer is wrong. Only that it wasn't answered "scientifically".

So now we are getting closer to the crux of the problem, you don't like science and empiricism. In no small part because it conflicts with your political point of views.

"If a question is not answered via that process - then it is not a science". - Michael

Using your definition of science, then there is no such thing as science. Because there are many questions that cannot yet be answered by the sciences. The widely recognized sciences are full of questions that cannot yet be answered.

And if you don't like the answers provided by science, then disprove it using the same logic, evidence and reason. But here is your problem in that regard, you cannot do it.

 

[hansda]

I think you should read about my theory on money-flow to find out , whether it is science or not .

Did you form a thread topic?

I have developed a theory on money-flow . This theory can explain money-flow in the economy like current-flow of science .

Though I did not yet post this theory in this forum .

 

[charles brough]

MICHAEL, my Websters dictionary defines "sociology" as "the science of society." But I do see your point and I think I have addressed it below---especially in the 2nd paragraph:

There is no question but what the social sciences use a different means to provide us with a more accurate understanding of behavior, but the whole scientific method is only a web of useful techniques to achieve a more accurate understanding of ourselves and our universe. It includes the techniques used in the social sciences.

We all know that social sciences are different from the physical sciences. We even know that the social theorists who interpret the social science data are not going to interpret it in a way clearly hostile to religion and even to our secular ideals. Social theory academics are even, intutively, looked down on by scientists in the other fields because they know their interpreting of their data cannot be, and is not, objective. But is that air of superiority really warranted? The hard scientists are glad to have the social theorists to do their religious and secular ideal rationalizing for them because they don't want to do it themselves . . .

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

 

[Michael]

So now we are getting closer to the crux of the problem, you don't like science and empiricism. In no small part because it conflicts with your political point of views.

:bugeye:

I have no idea how me being liberal (fiscally conservative) has anything to do with Science being a process of inquiry. Let me guess, now you're a "political" scientist (there's an oxymoron for ya
....and hell, Obama's not only the POTUS he's also a world renown Scientist to boot!! That's what everyone thinks of Obama, first word in your mind "Scientist". No different than Einstein. Maybe he should be awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics ....since we're moving to LaLa land?

"If a question is not answered via that process - then it is not a science". - Michael

Using your definition of science, then there is no such thing as science.

Sure there is.

Because there are many questions that cannot yet be answered by the sciences. The widely recognized sciences are full of questions that cannot yet be answered.

Yes, this is true and so what do we mean when we say "Science"? That's an interesting question but not as important as understanding what the Scientific Method is. If a field or endeavour (or hobby) is not resting on application of this methodology (or can't) then it really has not business calling itself a "Science" and would be better off referring to itself as a philosophy.

And if you don't like the answers provided by science, then disprove it using the same logic, evidence and reason. But here is your problem in that regard, you cannot do it.

You've yet to describe a single example of a macroeconomic experiment that follows the Scientific Method.

 

[Michael]

I have developed a theory on money-flow . This theory can explain money-flow in the economy like current-flow of science .

Though I did not yet post this theory in this forum .

If you do decide to do so, make a link and I'll read it.

NOTE: Do you really mean theory? That's a pretty strong term in Science. Like the electromagnetic theory or theory of evolution. Not to be confused with my theory Joe is a Keynesian economist who is right now probably thinking if we could only pretend there was an Alien Invasion from Mars would solve all our economic problems That would be more akin to an opinion. See, in Joe's world the opinion of elitist "economists" who have crawled up their own anus is "Science". I didn't want you falling into the same mental liquidity trap


Nobel Prize Weiner Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump (VIDEO)

 

[Michael]

MICHAEL, my Websters dictionary defines "sociology" as "the science of society." But I do see your point and I think I have addressed it below---especially in the 2nd paragraph:

There is no question but what the social sciences use a different means to provide us with a more accurate understanding of behavior, but the whole scientific method is only a web of useful techniques to achieve a more accurate understanding of ourselves and our universe. It includes the techniques used in the social sciences.

We all know that social sciences are different from the physical sciences. We even know that the social theorists who interpret the social science data are not going to interpret it in a way clearly hostile to religion and even to our secular ideals. Social theory academics are even, intutively, looked down on by scientists in the other fields because they know their interpreting of their data cannot be, and is not, objective. But is that air of superiority really warranted? The hard scientists are glad to have the social theorists to do their religious and secular ideal rationalizing for them because they don't want to do it themselves . . .

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

It's not so much as superiority (at least in my mind) but one of some people attempting to use the word "Science" to lend a level of credibility (and certainty) to their study that is in no way warranted.

Not only is it misleading, it actually damages the sciences that do use science and indeed are certain.

Take the use of the word Theory as in Evolutionary Theory. I now wonder, should we piss off the Mathematicians and start using "Law"? I mean, those damn Physicists acting all high and mighty flaunting their so-called Laws!

See my point?

Things need to be framed appropriately for the public to best be accurately informed. That's the whole point in language at the end of the day... isn't it?

 

[joepistole]

:bugeye:

I have no idea how me being liberal (fiscally conservative) has anything to do with Science being a process of inquiry. Let me guess, now you're a "political" scientist (there's an oxymoron for ya

Call yourself a horse for all I care. But the facts are that you are supporting a Republican candidate for president. I would much rather you be fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative. Two and the rest of your commentary here is just more nonsense.

....and hell, Obama's not only the POTUS he's also a world renown Scientist to boot!! That's what everyone thinks of Obama, first word in your mind "Scientist". No different than Einstein. Maybe he should be awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics ....since we're moving to LaLa land?
Sure there is.

More nonsense/chaff.

Yes, this is true and so what do we mean when we say "Science"? That's an interesting question but not as important as understanding what the Scientific Method is. If a field or endeavour (or hobby) is not resting on application of this methodology (or can't) then it really has not business calling itself a "Science" and would be better off referring to itself as a philosophy.

You've yet to describe a single example of a macroeconomic experiment that follows the Scientific Method.

More gibberish, the word "science" is defined in the dictionary. The dictionary you choose to ignore.

You want economic experiments:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1060819

When it comes to experiments, I think you need to go back to the dictionary and look up the definition of experiment. Validation happens all the time in economics. Read some work on Keynes (e.g. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money).

Here is the bottom line, you have a political need to discredit the sciences and institutions of higher learning. Because they don't support your political ideology. That is not a rational or scientific approach Michael.

 

[hansda]

If you do decide to do so, make a link and I'll read it.

NOTE: Do you really mean theory? That's a pretty strong term in Science. Like the electromagnetic theory or theory of evolution. Not to be confused with my theory Joe is a Keynesian economist who is right now probably thinking if we could only pretend there was an Alien Invasion from Mars would solve all our economic problems That would be more akin to an opinion. See, in Joe's world the opinion of elitist "economists" who have crawled up their own anus is "Science". I didn't want you falling into the same mental liquidity trap


Nobel Prize Weiner Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump (VIDEO)

I can post the extract of my theory on money-flow .

 

[Michael]

Call yourself a horse for all I care. But the facts are that you are supporting a Republican candidate for president. I would much rather you be fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative.

As I have made clear on many occasions I don't vote along party lines, I vote in both primaries, and I may pick a Republican for one office and a Democrat for another and an Independent for yet another.

example: I voted for (D) Levin (and would do so again) for our Senatorial representative in MI and (D) Obama for POTUS in MI electoral college. I will vote for (R) Ron Paul (whose philosophy is actually Libertarian) in the next presidential election for MI electoral college.

More gibberish, the word "science" is defined in the dictionary. The dictionary you choose to ignore.

scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis

WIKI:

In modern use, "science" is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[5] This narrower sense of "science" developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining "laws of nature", based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.

You want economic experiments:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1060819

When it comes to experiments, I think you need to go back to the dictionary and look up the definition of experiment. Validation happens all the time in economics. Read some work on Keynes (e.g. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money).

That's not primary research on the "real" economy - that's an example of some classroom activities.

Here is the bottom line, you have a political need to discredit the sciences and institutions of higher learning. Because they don't support your political ideology. That is not a rational or scientific approach Michael.

No, it is you who need the tag "Science" clamped onto the field of Economics so as to lend it an air of credibility and predictability it does not deserve.

Macroeconomics, the only economics the public really cares about and is willing to fund the study of, is NOT science. How many "Economic" Scientists predicted the worst economic disaster of the last 80 years? Hardly any. NONE of the the so-called "Experts". None of the Professors.

When that happens in real Science the field becomes defunct - see: Phrenology.

 

[joepistole]

As I have made clear on many occasions I don't vote along party lines, I vote in both primaries, and I may pick a Republican for one office and a Democrat for another and an Independent for yet another.

example: I voted for (D) Levin (and would do so again) for our Senatorial representative in MI and (D) Obama for POTUS in MI electoral college. I will vote for (R) Ron Paul (whose philosophy is actually Libertarian) in the next presidential election for MI electoral college.



scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis

WIKI:

That's not primary research on the "real" economy - that's an example of some classroom activities.

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/1304.gif

No, it is you who need the tag "Science" clamped onto the field of Economics so as to lend it an air of credibility and predictability it does not deserve.

Macroeconomics, the only economics the public really cares about and is willing to fund the study of, is NOT science. How many "Economic" Scientists predicted the worst economic disaster of the last 80 years? Hardly any. NONE of the the so-called "Experts". None of the Professors.

When that happens in real Science the field becomes defunct - see: Phrenology.

Now you are back to making stuff up again Michael. The facts are Michael that dictionaries define economics as a science. The fact is economics is widely recognized as a science. It uses empirical data and reasoning to develop conclusions.

Here is the deal Michael, I don't need to reinvent the dictionary and redefine the words science, experiment, or economics to make my point. You do. Using your definition of science, there are no sciences. And that is clearly not the case.

 

[Michael]

Now you are back to making stuff up again Michael. The facts are Michael that dictionaries define economics as a science. The fact is economics is widely recognized as a science. It uses empirical data and reasoning to develop conclusions.

Science is a Method Joe. It's HOW the empirical data is used to develop a reasoned conclusion that counts. Which is why I continue to draw your attention to the distinction between classical deductive versus inductive methods of rational discourse. Deduction being the method employed by "Scientists" when performing the "Scientific Method" while in the process of developing a "Scientific" explanation for an observed phenomena - you know SCIENCE!

Economy is subfield under the umbrella of sociology which is itself "social science" (that's more than generous considering macroeconomics is not amiable with the SCIENTIFIC method

 

[Michael]

How many Economists called the GREATEST economic catastrophe of a generation? Only a couple. All the rest (literally MILLIONS of graduated economists) who had crawled up into their collective economic anuses warmed by their occasional Nobel Prize (next to WarHawk Obama and his Nobel Peace prize [Ha!]) safe in the knowledge economics was a "Science" completely MISSED it.

Prove me wrong Joe. Use your economic "Theory" to tell me what the price of oil, silver and gold will be December next year. What about the US dollar, is it going to collapse as BillyT says or be stronger than ever. How about Japan. How much longer will they be in a recession. Will the Euro still be around. Please calculate your "results" to the 0.05 alpha value and include the error as error of the mean as that's easiest.

See, unlike a real science, which can make predictions with a certain statistical certainty, economics can't. As a matter of fact, you have absolutely ZERO reliable evidence of ANY major economic events. Some "Science" economics is. If it can't make ANY useful predictions then it can't answer ANY of it's own hypothesis reliably and is in no way different from Phrenology (ready bumps on the skull to determine aptitude).

These FACTS have nothing at all to do with my political leanings. They are, as it where, what they are.

 

[Michael]

You want economic experiments:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1060819

You know, after reading of bit of this it seems more an exercise in brainwashing "modern" so-called economic "theory" into the heads of budding "Economists" (yeah, I'd like to know how they use that term (ie: Theory!).

From your link, I note:
"Even when standard theory fail, they can fail in interesting ways...."

Really now? AND ARE THEY (Economic 'Theories') THEN REJECTED as happens in modern chemistry, physics and biology? Somehow, I don't think so. The truth appears to be that Economist use the 'Theory' in a way Scientists may use the word 'opinion'.