Is Economics A Science?

[joepistole]

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.

What a load. You obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter. What makes it a science is the use of empiricism and adherence to the scientific method.

Unfortunately there are now groups, more specifically the American conservative movement, that advocates policies that are in direct opposition to the sciences and rationalism. Thus they have and continue to try through their control of the media to discredit and misrepresent the sciences and institutions of higher learning - just like several other dictators before them (e.g. Mao).

 

[hansda]

You mean:

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

You have rightly pointed out the basic theory for current-flow . This theory is very useful in the science for electricity . Many innovations happened from this theory .


Whether it is current-flow or currency-flow ; it is a flow .


So, if there is a theory for current-flow ; there also should be a theory for money-flow or currency-flow .

 

[Faure]

What a load. You obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter. What makes it a science is the use of empiricism and adherence to the scientific method.

Nope, it isn't a science. The vast majority of economics research does not use anything approximating the scientific method. Most contemporary microeconomic research is essentially a branch of mathematics (i.e. completely unempirical). Most contemporary macroeconomics is just obviously not science. Macro has made zero widely accepted advances in its entire history. There is not a single non-trivial macroeconomic fact that the profession as a whole accepts. The discipline has made no advances at all since Smith/Ricardo. Macroeconomic phenomena just isn't amenable to the scientific method.

Economics at its best is most like math, or most like history. It is not an empirical science. There are small research programs in economics that could be called scientific (like a lot of what happens at caltech) but most of econ is uncontroversially not am empirical science.

 

[Michael]

Since the idea of strict demarcation between science and non-science has been effectively passe in the philosophy of science for years now,

This would be worth haveing a thread topic on. I know a number of University educators that like to remind me of this exact point. Of course, none of these guys do any Science or had a Scientific career (other than to teach it). Also, they don't know, really, what it's like to have students and employees come in the lab and NOT have any clue as to what the Scientific process is (this includes many professional researchers )

At least the ones I know.... :shrug:

What a load. You obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter. What makes it a science is the use of empiricism and adherence to the scientific method.

Unfortunately there are now groups, more specifically the American conservative movement, that advocates policies that are in direct opposition to the sciences and rationalism. Thus they have and continue to try through their control of the media to discredit and misrepresent the sciences and institutions of higher learning - just like several other dictators before them (e.g. Mao).

ad hominem AND red herring

Whether it is current-flow or currency-flow ; it is a flow .

I don't think that this assumption is true.

 

[joepistole]

ad hominem AND red herring

LOL, No Michael it is the truth. You are the guy who refuses to accept documented evidence because it conflicts with your biases. For God's sake, you even want to dismiss good old Webster's definitions in order to justify your notions.

 

[Michael]

LOL, No Michael it is the truth. You are the guy who refuses to accept documented evidence because it conflicts with your biases. For God's sake, you even want to dismiss good old Webster's definitions in order to justify your notions.

No, I said you can not define something into reality. For example, suppose Websters defined economics as a pseudoscience, would it then, on that day, suddenly become so?

I also stated that Webster was biased and the dictionary is well known for trying to use definitions as a means of controlling/limiting theological debate.

Websters: God
The supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Dictionary.com: God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

Notice Dictionary.com contains the omnipotent, omniscient paradox among others. Supreme reality is a far cry from male deity now isn't it? Websters continues its bias into all the words used to describe God and so on.




As for Economics, as I said, I granted you "soft" science. Be grateful

 

[joepistole]

No, I said you can not define something into reality. For example, suppose Websters defined economics as a pseudoscience, would it then, on that day, suddenly become so?

I also stated that Webster was biased and the dictionary is well known for trying to use definitions as a means of controlling/limiting theological debate.

Websters: God
The supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Dictionary.com: God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

Notice Dictionary.com contains the omnipotent, omniscient paradox among others. Supreme reality is a far cry from male deity now isn't it? Websters continues its bias into all the words used to describe God and so on.

As for Economics, as I said, I granted you "soft" science. Be grateful

LOL, yeah. I think you confirmed what I said.

 

[hansda]

I don't think that this assumption is true.

I have attempted to make two theories ; which together can define money-flow .

 

[Michael]

LOL, yeah. I think you confirmed what I said.

Good, so we agree Economics is, at best, a soft science. Being generous.

Now that that's done lets kick back with a tall cold frothy glass of Ron Paul 2012
:cheers:

 

[joepistole]

Good, so we agree Economics is, at best, a soft science. Being generous.

Now that that's done lets kick back with a tall cold frothy glass of Ron Paul 2012
:cheers:

No. I suggest you go back and read. I said you proved my point, not yours. Unfortunately for you economics is a hard science that fully embraces empirical research.

 

[charles brough]

An art, practice and philosophy. Some social experiments are scientific. As economics is a subtype of sociology, it could be coincided a "social" science / science.
It's not "hard" science..

That's right, it is a social science. All standard fields devoted to improving the accuracy of what we understand of the natural cause and effect complexity in ourselves and the world around us is science. In the physical world, we uncover "laws"; regarding the social, natural world, we uncover the best generalizations.

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

 

[Michael]

No. I suggest you go back and read. I said you proved my point, not yours. Unfortunately for you economics is a hard science that fully embraces empirical research.

OK, I will.

Yup, just reread each of your posts and the only "evidence" you have posted of economics being a science is a Websters definition.

That's just not good enough :shrug:

That's right, it is a social science. All standard fields devoted to improving the accuracy of what we understand of the natural cause and effect complexity in ourselves and the world around us is science. In the physical world, we uncover "laws"; regarding the social, natural world, we uncover the best generalizations.

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

I would disagree that ALL standard fields are "Science". As a matter of fact, I am thoroughly convinced science is the LEAST used process for describing social generalizations (mostly its inductive observation) AND a lot of "Laws" are mathematical descriptions.

Science is probably a minority process.

 

[joepistole]

OK, I will.

Yup, just reread each of your posts and the only "evidence" you have posted of economics being a science is a Websters definition.

That's just not good enough :shrug:

Well I suggest you go back and read again. Because there was more than Websters. But Websters should in and of itself be sufficient.

I would disagree that ALL standard fields are "Science". As a matter of fact, I am thoroughly convinced science is the LEAST used process for describing social generalizations (mostly its inductive observation) AND a lot of "Laws" are mathematical descriptions.

Science is probably a minority process.

That is your opinion. You have no evidence or reason. It is just a point of view. Your political point of view is not compatible with science and reason thus it is why you want to dismiss them.

 

[Michael]

Well I suggest you go back and read again. Because there was more than Websters. But Websters should in and of itself be sufficient.

OK... be back in 30 min.

Yup, just as I thought, nothing. There is Websters definition. Which states:

economics
1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with ....

So, there you go, by your own link the best economics is a going to get is a big fat social/soft science.

It is YOUR link Joe :shrug:


I think Faure summed it up best with the point that maybe some microeconomic experiments are actual science experiments. It's just that most people think of, you know, The Economy (that they are a part of and participate in) and make the mistake of assuming jack ass morons like Ben Bernanke actually have a background in critical scientific thinking and that his theory are grounded in something other than pure horse manure.

So, now that Webster's cleared that up, we'll be on our way

 

[joepistole]

OK... be back in 30 min.

Yup, just as I thought, nothing. There is Websters definition. Which states:

economics
1 a : a social science concerned chiefly with ....

So, there you go, by your own link the best economics is a going to get is a big fat social/soft science.

It is YOUR link Joe :shrug:

I think Faure summed it up best with the point that maybe some microeconomic experiments are actual science experiments. It's just that most people think of, you know, The Economy (that they are a part of and participate in) and make the mistake of assuming jack ass morons like Ben Bernanke actually have a background in critical scientific thinking and that his theory are grounded in something other than pure horse manure.

So, now that Webster's cleared that up, we'll be on our way

Where in Websters does it say anything about soft in relation to economics? Oh that is right, it doesn't. That is you trying to modify reality to conform to your political point of view. Michael you are fond of accusing others who disagree with you that they are somehow deluded. But they are not the ones who need to modify reality in order to make room for their point of view - too make sense of the world. I would suggest to you that truth should not require reality modification.

 

[hansda]

Whether it is current-flow or currency-flow ; it is a flow .

I don't think that this assumption is true.

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

 

[charles brough]

I would disagree that ALL standard fields are "Science". As a matter of fact, I am thoroughly convinced science is the LEAST used process for describing social generalizations (mostly its inductive observation) AND a lot of "Laws" are mathematical descriptions. Science is probably a minority process.

Do you perhaps "get a kick" out of believing archeologists, anthropologists, historians, animal behavioralists, mathmaticians and others are "not scientists?" What is to be gained by changing the definition of "scientist" as you seem intent to do?:shrug:

 

[Michael]

Where in Websters does it say anything about soft in relation to economics? Oh that is right, it doesn't. That is you trying to modify reality to conform to your political point of view. Michael you are fond of accusing others who disagree with you that they are somehow deluded. But they are not the ones who need to modify reality in order to make room for their point of view - too make sense of the world. I would suggest to you that truth should not require reality modification.

Just why do you suppose Websters uses the adjective "social" to describe the kind of "Science" economists perform?

phys·ics
n.
1. The science of matter and energy....

bi·ol·o·gy
n.
1. The science of life and of living organisms,....

chem·is·try
n.
1. The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter,.....

psy·chol·o·gy
n.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior....

so·ci·ol·o·gy
n.
1. The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.


NOTE: Sociology is the study of...
NOTE #2: Economics is a discipline of sociology. The social science could be misleading. We'll get to that in a minute. So, why the social science whereas physics, chemistry, biology, psychology are all just Science? Well, it's because some microeconomic paradigms can be studied using the Scientific Method whereas macroeconomic can NOT be studied using the Scientific Method.

Let's just make sure that is clear. MACROECONOMICS (the thing most laypeople think of when they hear the word "Economics") can NOT be studied through application of the Scientific Method and thus is NOT a "science". At best it's an inductive process modeling past events. While that process may contain pretty numbers and squiggles and maybe the occasional misleading graph, it's NOT the Scientific Process which is DEDUCTIVE. It's not science.

Clear now, good!

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.

Do you perhaps "get a kick" out of believing archeologists, anthropologists, historians, animal behavioralists, mathmaticians and others are "not scientists?" What is to be gained by changing the definition of "scientist" as you seem intent to do?:shrug:

You and Joe seem to have a very lay understanding of the word "science".

Archeologists may or may not be "scientists" as in they may or may not apply the Scientific Method in the study of archeology. Which is why we also have the term "Experts" or even better "Archeologists" (which I think nicely sums up their title, if one need be given a professional moniker

There's nothing "wrong" with inductive study. Most things are examined and analyzed inductively. That's not applying the Scientific Method though. Which is deductive.

I don't see what the problem is? :shrug: It's really about whether the process of data gathering followed a deductive Scientific Method or not. We could open that other thread you know It's almost as if the word "science" is being confused with the words worthwhile, valid, legitimate, etc.... science is only a process.

 

[Michael]

One more thing regarding archeology. I know that for the Hawaiian head dress they've enlisted the help of a genetic biologist to determine how many extinct types of birds one of the oldest (and most prestigious) headdress at the Smithsonian is made out of.

That's an example of scientific inquiry in the field of archaeology. That scientist would refer to him/herself as a scientist (maybe a evolutary-molecular-bio-archaeologist... but, would it matter?)

 

[joepistole]

Just why do you suppose Websters uses the adjective "social" to describe the kind of "Science" economists perform?

phys·ics
n.
1. The science of matter and energy....

bi·ol·o·gy
n.
1. The science of life and of living organisms,....

chem·is·try
n.
1. The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter,.....

psy·chol·o·gy
n.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior....

so·ci·ol·o·gy
n.
1. The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.


NOTE: Sociology is the study of...
NOTE #2: Economics is a discipline of sociology. The social science could be misleading. We'll get to that in a minute. So, why the social science whereas physics, chemistry, biology, psychology are all just Science? Well, it's because some microeconomic paradigms can be studied using the Scientific Method whereas macroeconomic can NOT be studied using the Scientific Method.

Let's just make sure that is clear. MACROECONOMICS (the thing most laypeople think of when they hear the word "Economics") can NOT be studied through application of the Scientific Method and thus is NOT a "science". At best it's an inductive process modeling past events. While that process may contain pretty numbers and squiggles and maybe the occasional misleading graph, it's NOT the Scientific Process which is DEDUCTIVE. It's not science.

Clear now, good!

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.

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.

You and Joe seem to have a very lay understanding of the word "science".

Archeologists may or may not be "scientists" as in they may or may not apply the Scientific Method in the study of archeology. Which is why we also have the term "Experts" or even better "Archeologists" (which I think nicely sums up their title, if one need be given a professional moniker

There's nothing "wrong" with inductive study. Most things are examined and analyzed inductively. That's not applying the Scientific Method though. Which is deductive.

I don't see what the problem is? :shrug: It's really about whether the process of data gathering followed a deductive Scientific Method or not. We could open that other thread you know It's almost as if the word "science" is being confused with the words worthwhile, valid, legitimate, etc.... science is only a process.

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.